2006-06-09

Government Orders
Criminal Code[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from June 7 consideration of the motion that Bill C-10, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (minimum penalties for offences involving firearms) and to make a consequential amendment to another Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Lloyd St. Amand (Brant, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have listened to some of the speeches from members opposite and have heard various references to specific cases and the suggestion from members opposite that a general or sweeping conclusion can and frankly should be drawn from an analysis of simply a few cases or a few situations. Drawing sweeping conclusions as a result of only a few situations is always risky and is, with respect, intellectually rather shallow.
Having practised law for 25 years prior to my election to this distinguished House of Commons in June 2004, I represented many individuals who were charged with various criminal offences. I obviously cannot breach solicitor-client privilege by referring to specific names, but I can certainly indicate that I have observed non-custodial sentences work for the benefit of society, for the benefit of the victim, for the benefit of the offender's family and for the offender himself or herself.
I am referring to individuals who were charged with a criminal offence, in some cases a serious criminal offence. They appeared before the presiding judge and, following a plea of guilty or a finding of guilt, the presiding judge then obviously turned his or her mind to the issue of sentence or penalty.
It is important to recall the edict of a most distinguished counsel and later jurist, the late G. Arthur Martin. Mr. Justice Martin served with distinction for many years on the Ontario Court of Appeal and was widely regarded in his time as the pre-eminent authority with respect to criminal law throughout Canada. Mr. Justice Martin and many others have commented that the overriding principle of sentencing is to determine what this particular offender deserves by way of punishment for this particular offence. The reality is that human behaviour does not lend itself to a simple or computer driven analysis and it is too simplistic to conclude that there will automatically be a deterrent effect if the sentencing bar is only set high enough or harsh enough. 
 I can think of many cases in which an offender, a family man, received a non-custodial sentence as a result of a finding of guilt against him. The non-custodial sentence allowed him to, for instance, maintain his job and thereby continue to support his family. It allowed him to continue to parent his children. It allowed him to, as a result of maintaining employment, make restitution or compensation to the victim or victims. It allowed him to attend for counselling and other treatment ordered by the sentencing judge.
 Simply put, the non-custodial sentence worked to the benefit of everyone, as these individuals have not returned to the criminal justice system, have truly learned from their mistakes and have rounded the proverbial corner.
I appreciate that it is tempting to view the criminal justice system as a system which should be driven by formulae and by the principle that harsher penalties will automatically reduce the rate of crime. However tempting that may be, it is short-sighted and is not consistent with the experience that we have had in Canada with our current system.
The point has been made by many others, but it must be borne in mind that the crime rate in Canada is on the decline and that there is no compelling evidence to indicate that incarcerating more people truly works as a deterrent. If there were a clear link between increasing incarceration rates and decreasing crime rates, then an argument could logically be made for more persons to be incarcerated. However, the conclusion is otherwise. The rate of crime in Canada is on the decline.
Certainly the former Liberal government recognized that some serious crimes should be dealt with in a certain fashion and, hence, the policy of mandatory minimum penalties. The Criminal Code already contains some 42 mandatory minimum penalties and the majority of these are, quite properly, for offences involving firearms. Ten serious offences committed with a firearm carry mandatory minimum penalties of four years to a maximum of 14 years or life. Weapons trafficking and related offences carry minimum penalties of one year to a maximum of 10 years.
When an accused person appears before a judge, he brings with him, figuratively, to the door of the courtroom, his background, his life experiences, his challenges, his intellectual deficits, if any, his own at times scarred or abusive upbringing, his economic disadvantages, racial prejudice or stereotyping that he may have been exposed to, and various other factors. For instance, any reasonable observer knows that a disproportionately large number of aboriginal Canadians are incarcerated. To simply incarcerate individuals without providing them with counselling and treatment which will alter their behaviours on a long term basis is myopic.
This is not to sound as if I or others are soft on crime, but is simply to reflect a considered view that Mr. Justice Martin and others are correct in concluding that the overriding principle in sentencing is what a particular offender deserves by way of punishment for the particular offence he or she has committed. It is naive to think that building more prisons will reduce the crime rate. It is irresponsible to build more prisons instead of devoting more money to seniors, to aboriginals and to the disabled. 
 A crime prevention strategy involves more than imprisonment. The former Liberal government took many steps which were aimed at decreasing criminal activity across Canada. We increased funding for the national crime prevention strategy. Since its launch in 1998, the national crime prevention strategy has helped provide communities with the tools, the knowledge and the support communities need to deal with the root causes of crime at a local level. This strategy has supported more than 5,000 projects nationwide, dealing with serious issues like family violence, sexual abuse, sexual assault or drug abuse. 
In my riding of Brant, there have been several successful projects under the NCPS. These projects are aimed at engaging youth in the community. One project, administered by the Sexual Assault Centre of Brant, developed a youth theatre project. This project engaged students in identifying, discussing and raising the awareness of important social issues.
It is obviously important that our streets and our communities be safe. It is vital that our criminal justice system ensure the safety of each member of society. It is critical that our criminal justice system provide long term solutions to the continued reduction or decrease in the rate of crime.
As others have noted, the ultimate rehabilitation of the individual offers the best long term protection for society, since that rehabilitation ends the risk of the continuing criminal career. There is simply no compelling or persuasive evidence that increasing the number of mandatory minimum penalties will reduce the rate of crime in Canada. As was noted by Cheryl Webster and Anthony Doob of the Centre for Criminology at the University of Toronto:
 The literature on the effects of sentence severity on crime levels has been reviewed numerous times in the past twenty-five years. Most reviews conclude that there is little or no consistent evidence that harsher penalties reduce crime rates in Western populations. Indeed, a reasonable assessment of the research to date--with a particular focus on studies conducted in the past decade--is that sentence severity has no effect on the level of crime in society. 
Would that the issue of crime lend itself to a simple answer, a simple answer such as “let us only make the penalties harsh enough and the crime rate will automatically be reduced”. Whether we like to admit it or not, the complexity of human behaviour and identifying causes for human behaviour do not lend themselves to simple answers.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, CPC): Mr. Speaker, according to Statistics Canada in regard to the use of handguns, handgun homicides have increased by 25% since the late 1990s. The increasing use of handguns is also reported by police in robberies, extortions and miscellaneous violent crimes, so there is an increase, as reported by Statistics Canada.
It is also well known that gang related homicides have gone sky high compared to 10 years ago. This is known through the homicide survey part of Canadian crime statistics. Also, the proportion of handguns used as firearms has increased in the last 25 years from 27% to 65% in 2004. This is all Statistics Canada information.
Is the member prepared to acknowledge, regardless of what statistics show, that handguns and guns that would never be registered by criminals are now in surplus in huge amounts of numbers in the cities across this country and that there are more guns available that these people can get their hands on through black market and underground methods?
 Is he aware of the increased numbers of gang members and of gangs themselves? If he is, let me note that we live in a country where severity of punishment in the last few years has never been a problem, where we have not seen severity in our punishment. We have seen a lot of house arrests, community service, et cetera. How can the member be sure that the severity of punishment would not have an effect when we have never really experienced it? He may comment on anything or all of what I said.
[Interjection]
Lloyd St. Amand: Mr. Speaker, I agree to a point that gang and gun related violence seems to be on the increase, but I will repeat what I said in the body of my speech. Our Criminal Code already contains some 42 mandatory minimum penalties. The majority of these mandatory minimum penalties are, as I said, quite properly for offences involving firearms, so the teeth of the law, so to speak, are already there. That is already present within the Criminal Code. Frankly, that was why the minister of justice, as he then was in the autumn of 2005, introduced a bill tightening the Criminal Code even more.
Mr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I would like to understand the member's rationale in supporting Bill C-9 but now not supporting Bill C-10 when both of them deal with issues surrounding incarceration terms. Perhaps he could elaborate on how these bills are different and should be considered philosophically different.
[Interjection]
Lloyd St. Amand: Mr. Speaker, I have dealt this morning only with the issue of mandatory minimum penalties. The issue of conditional sentences and house arrest is quite another topic. For my part I do not see, frankly, any contrary positions advanced by myself or other members of our party. Simply put, with respect to mandatory minimum penalties, the teeth are already there in the current system.
Mr. Michael Savage (Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to participate in the debate.
During the election campaign in January the issue of crime was prevalent in my riding, as I suspect it was in many ridings across the country. I look forward to supporting measures that might have some impact on reducing crime. I waited with some interest for the bill to come forward but I was a little disappointed, and I will explain why.
While we are debating this legislation today, the debate is more profound than that. We are debating how the country deals with fellow citizens, what happens to fellow citizens and how people should be convicted of an offence.
We are all concerned about crime in our communities and it is certainly the case in Dartmouth--Cole Harbour. I have met with individuals who have been affected by crime, some serious, perhaps some less serious, but each criminal act has an impact on our communities, causing people to feel vulnerable and unsafe. I want to do something to help people feel safer in their communities.
As an MP who has been called upon to vote on Bill C-10, I have had the responsibility to ensure I support any legislation that is reasonable, effective, rooted in fact and evidence, and consistent with Canadian values. The bill, unfortunately, does not pass that standard. The legislation is not rooted in good law and not substantiated by evidence.
The Minister of Public Safety was quoted recently on the subject of minimum sentences as saying:
 We also believe there will be a deterring effect from getting serious about serious crime. 
I read an article by Dan Gardner who has written extensively on crime. He wrote:
 Naturally, [the Minister of Public Safety] didn't cite any research in support of his conclusion. He didn't need to. The government “believes.” And as every man of faith knows, belief can conquer even the mightiest army of facts. 
 But for those of us in the reality-based community--the famously dismissive phrase of a Bush official--belief isn't good enough. We expect policy to be supported by facts and research. Perhaps that makes us lesser men and women, but we can't accept something as true simply because it's been given [the Prime Minister's] benediction. So where's the evidence that the government's radical, U.S.-style approach to criminal justice will make us safer? You won't find it on its website. There are lots of bold claims, of course. But in the press release and background information, there isn't a word about evidence. 
It is clear that the Conservatives continue to serve up good politics under the guise of good public policy. This is not good public policy. The legislation would not address the real issues of crime, much of which is rooted in systemic poverty. Rather, the result would be a boon for those in the business of constructing prisons.
The American experience, which the government tends to look to for guidance, tells us a different story.
 As an example, New York was the first state to limit the discretion of judges in sentencing. Lengthy sentences were required, 15 years to life, even for some non-violent, first-time offenders, many of whom would have received brief sentences, along with drug treatments and community service prior to those sentences. 
Then, of course, there is the California “three strikes and you're out” law.
Not surprisingly, these mandatory sentences resulted in the increased number of Americans who went to prison and the cost of building and maintaining prisons.
By 1999, 6.3 million adults were under correctional supervision. By some estimates, the American government spent close to $40 billion on incarceration and, by the mid-1990s, California and New York were spending more on prisons than on higher education.
Some would suggest that anybody who disagrees with them on this is soft on crime. This is not the case. It simplifies an issue that is complex. I think the vast majority of crime is rooted in our inability to help those who most need to find dignity, those most in need, the poor.
We have not done enough to eradicate poverty in Canada. We all bear that responsibility. We have not done enough to ensure that all Canadians have the basic chance to succeed in life, especially for young kids from low income families. We need to do a better job of providing the means to have a decent and healthy breakfast and the opportunity to learn and not sit in a classroom hungry.
We need to ensure that those who cannot afford higher education obtain the means to do so they have the hope of an education which might lead to employment.
It is easy to introduce tough legislation, as the government would suggest. It is easy to throw people in prisons and when they run out of space to build new ones. However, if we are serious about building our communities and we care about our individual citizens, then we should stop creating policies that benefit the rich and hurt the poor. If we are concerned about communities, we should not provide tax breaks to those who need it the least, while penalizing the poor.
Let us not forget Mike Harris who, while cutting welfare and taxes, allowed the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer.
If the government really cared about our communities it would not cut programs and child care, which we need, that attempt to build and help families while ensuring that children receive quality and accessible child care.
I believe the legislation speaks to the sort of John Wayne approach to the world: macho and seemingly tough but does not address the real issues of crime. 
We can never excuse crime but we can explain why people find themselves in trouble. We need to address crime prevention with real policies and continue to address the outcome of behaviour and not the substance of issues that create crime.
I believe it is the responsibility of the government to put bills before us that are evidence based and will enhance the effectiveness of our criminal justice regime. 
I know some members opposite do have a grudging respect for the charter, some may not, but many do. However, our charter is meant to protect individuals from the state and we need to ensure that any law we pass meets that constitutional test and that what we do here as legislators passes the proportionality test, meaning that we address and redress problems in a measured way.
Amendments to the code should not be ideologically driven. I believe, unfortunately, in this case that is the case. The bill before us today goes much further than the existing mandatory minimum sentences in the Criminal Code. Historically, mandatory minimums have been used with restraint. I note from a recent survey of judges, I think in 2005, indicated that over half of them felt that mandatory minimum sentences would hinder their ability to impose a just sentence.
Mandatory minimums on a widened scale undermine the fundamental principle of proportionality. The chief sentencing principles enshrined in the Criminal Code allow judges to set a sentence proportionate to the gravity of the offence. In some cases mandatory minimums may actually lead to fewer convictions and fewer penalties. The all or nothing approach could lead to charges being stayed or even withdrawn when they should go forward.
The people in my riding are concerned about crime and want to ensure that people who offend are punished. They understand that violence and crime affects us all and they understand that the solutions are complex. They understand that justice must be firm and fair, that we address issues like poverty and underemployment where people have little, but also take meaningful ways to make their communities safer.
I know and understand the devastating effect crime has on victims. I have seen it often in my community. I would vote for crime legislation that was tougher on crime. I would welcome legislation that was tougher on crime if it were evidence based and had a hope of being effective.
As a legislature, we act in ways that seek ways to enhance opportunity for people, especially those most in need. I will act in the way that ensures our communities are safe and our justice system is fair but tough on those who offend. However, what I cannot do is vote for a law that I consider to be a bad law, that is not rooted in evidence and that has no chance of succeeding.
Mr. Ken Epp (Edmonton—Sherwood Park, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have not often been getting up lately because I wanted to give our new young members the opportunity, like my colleague over there, but I cannot continue to sit when the Liberal member over there says that the bill would not get tough on crime and that he will vote against it because it is too tough.
The member needs to read the bill. The bill refers to the use of a firearm, not in duck hunting or deer hunting. It refers to the use of a firearm in the commission of an offence and the offences are listed. We have criminal negligence causing death, attempted murder, discharging a firearm with intent, sexual assault with a weapon, aggravated sexual assault, kidnapping, hostage taking, robbery and extortion. Those are things people are doing with firearms. 
What are the minimum sentences to which he objects? For a second offence, provided it takes place within 10 years, the minimum sentence would now be three years. The member says that it is too tough. I am almost tempted to vote against the bill because it is too soft. I cannot imagine a guy assaulting my wife with a gun when I am not home and he only receives three years. I am almost tempted to vote against it but I will support it because at least it goes in the right direction.
I would like the member to explain how he can possibly justify to his family and to other people's families across the country voting against the bill because it is too tough. I cannot believe it.
[Interjection]
Michael Savage: Mr. Speaker, it is not that it is too tough. It is that it is too stupid. I agree with that comment.
We do not introduce new laws based on anecdotes. We introduce them based on evidence. The article I referred to earlier was not Liberal talking notes or Conservative talking notes, as my colleague said. This is an article by a journalist who called the Minister of Justice and asked him what the law was based on and where the evidence was. 
He was given five studies. When he checked them out, each of those studies turned out to be not quite what they were presented to be. They supposedly showed that mandatory minimums on gun crime and homicide had a huge impact. One researcher said, when contacted, “Conclusions are difficult to draw”. Another researcher concluded that “the laws did not reduce homicides”. Another suggested that “gun-related mandatory minimum sentences do little to reduce crime or gun use”. Another one said, “The consensus is that these sentences are not particularly effective”.
I will support legislation that is tough on crime and makes communities safer but it must be based on evidence, it must have a chance of succeeding and it must have a chance of making the communities safer for the people in Dartmouth--Cole Harbour and across Canada.
Mr. Pierre Lemieux (Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, CPC): Mr. Speaker, as I listened to the member and to the previous member, it seemed that he was speaking in favour of the offender to some extent. What about law-abiding Canadians and what about victims?
I want to follow up on my colleague's comments. We must remember that we are talking about minimum mandatory sentences for serious crimes committed with a firearm. The question we must ask is why the perpetrator has a firearm and what he intends to do with it.
These are not minor misdemeanours here. These are crimes committed with a weapon. It is not ideological, as he suggests. Serious crime and weapon related crime has gone up, and Canadians know this. They do not feel safe anymore. One need only ask the people in Toronto if they feel safe. I would remind the House of the drive-by shootings and the gun crimes we saw last December. 
When an offender has been charged and found guilty, Canadians feel that sentences are too light. The soft Liberal approach to crime--
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. We need to leave the hon. member some time to answer the question.
[Interjection]
Pierre Lemieux: Mr. Speaker, I have a quick question for the member. I would ask the member to picture himself being the victim of a crime, to picture the perpetrator having a weapon pointed at him, at his wife or at his children and then to consider what is being proposed in terms of minimum mandatory sentencing. If he can picture that, how can he not vote for the bill?
[Interjection]
Michael Savage: Mr. Speaker, in spite of the fact that I wanted to vote for the bill when I heard it would be introduced, I could find no evidence that it works or that it would reduce crime in Canada. 
The Liberal government introduced mandatory minimums in the past on a reasonable basis but if we are going to bring forward legislation let us do it in a way that will actually make the streets of Canada safer. That should be the ultimate goal of any legislation dealing with crime.
Hon. John McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am going to let the House in on a little secret. I will be voting against Bill C-10. The bill is one of the dumbest pieces of legislation ever to hit the floor of the House. It is absolutely dumb.
We must not tell anyone because the Conservatives actually think that they are being quite clever with this piece of legislation. The Conservatives think that they can somehow or another be tough on crime by introducing stupid legislation. This bill is stupid. It starts out at the beginning as a stupid bill and it will be a stupid bill after it is debated by the House.
I can hear the Conservatives all chirping here. The big game here is actually a political game. They want to show everyone who opposes the bill as being soft on crime and that the Conservatives are tough on crime, and somehow or another that will solve the problem.
I have noticed a pattern in the Conservative government. That party has a three step approach. The first step is to create a problem that does not exist. The second step is to propose a solution to a problem that does not exist. The third step is to pat themselves on the back and let everyone else pick up the pieces. 
Let us look at step one. The first step is to create a non-existent problem. To listen to the Conservative propaganda machine, which would do credit to the communist party of Russia, crime is out of control in this country. The streets are unsafe. There is mayhem everywhere. We should avoid the downtown areas of our major cities. In fact, I sat in this chamber a few days ago where the Minister of Justice proposed that we should avoid downtown Toronto, downtown Vancouver and downtown Winnipeg.
Last Sunday my family and I ignored his advice. We went out and we wandered around downtown Toronto on a Sunday evening. It was a lovely evening and we had a lovely meal. We celebrated my daughter's 18th birthday and we talked to a whole bunch of people who were also in downtown Toronto ignoring the minister's advice. 
In fact, there were thousands, if not tens of thousands of people in downtown Toronto apparently ignoring the minister's advice to avoid downtown Toronto. I realize that bashing Toronto is a favourite sport over on the other side. Frankly, the people of Toronto ignore the Conservative Party.
Perhaps the thousands of people who were with me and my family had actually read the Juristat statistics that are put out by Statistics Canada under the auspices of the Ministry of Justice. If the minister cares to read that material, he might find the following: 
 Following an increase in 2003, the national police-reported crime rate fell slightly (-1%) in 2004. Although most crimes declined in 2004, noticeable increases were seen in homicides and drug incidents. 
 The overall decrease in crime was largely driven by a 5% decline in Ontario. 
Ontario of all places.
 Most of this decline was due to large decreases in crime in Hamilton, Ottawa, St. Catharines-Niagara and Toronto census metropolitan areas. Ontario's crime was the lowest in the country for the second year in a row. 
 The total violent crime dropped by 2%. 
 In 2003 we reached a 36-year low in homicide rates. There was a 4% drop in robberies. Most property crimes declined. Break-ins were 4% lower than the year previous. Youth crime was down 4%.
I appreciate that members opposite do not actually like to deal with evidence. It interferes with their propaganda. Frankly, their game is to peddle fear. We had an example of this by the justice minister on the floor of the House who said to not go to the downtowns of our major cities because crime was rampant. Unfortunately, the facts do not support them. There is no evidence to support step one.
If that does not really matter, then we go to step two. Step two is to propose a solution to a non-existent problem. The big idea in the bill is minimum mandatories. Canada will be so much safer now that we have minimum mandatories.
I am sure that the entire criminal underclass is studying up on minimum mandatories as we speak so they can avoid the effects of this bill. I am sure some members feel, as I do, that this new standard of minimum mandatories has put deep fear into the hearts of our criminal underclass. 
I do not pretend to be a criminal law lawyer, but I did a bit when I first started practice. One of the things that I noticed about criminals, as a general statement, is that they are not the brightest lot in the world. In fact, they are kind of dumb. The other thing I have noticed about criminals, generally in the time that I represented them and in the time I have watched colleagues represent them, is that not one of them ever thought he or she would ever get caught. They were not really appreciating the nature and consequences of their actions.
I am sure that this bill is just going to have a huge impact on that criminal underclass. They are going to say to themselves that they are not going to commit a robbery and not pack any heat because they will get a minimum mandatory sentence. Criminals do not think that way.
Equally interesting about the minister's speech was that he said there is no Canadian evidence to support his bill. It is an extraordinary thing for a Minister of Justice to deposit a bill on the floor of this House and then say he has no evidence to support it. To be fair to him, he did cite two American studies, both of which were ambiguous and are in a different legal environment and a different sentencing environment. 
At the same time he also said that some of the states were actually going in the opposite direction and repealing their minimum mandatory sentences. Why? Because the evidence does not support the existence of minimum mandatories. 
Step one would create a problem that does not exist. Step two proposes a solution to a non-existent problem. And step three, pat oneself on the back and let the others pick up the pieces.
Minimum mandatories by definition erode judicial consideration and discretion. Everybody on the opposite side of the House thinks that is a great idea. After the judges have listened to the evidence, listened to the arguments, heard the witnesses, made a finding of guilt, read and listened to the pre-admission sentencing reports, and heard from the victims and the victim impact statements, they will now be in a worse position to make a decision than those who never heard any of that. 
This is going to lead to disproportionality of evidence. It will also lead to distortions in the way judges choose to sentence. If a minimum mandatory sentence were to shock the conscience, judges would accept pleas to lesser charges in order to achieve proportionality of sentence.
This bill tries to create a cookie-cutter approach to justice. The people who have had no access to what the judge has seen and heard will get to set the sentence. I do not know whether that makes any sense to other members in the House, but it certainly does not make any sense to me.
There are other consequences of this legislation that are equally perverse. My Liberal colleagues have outlined what is the most offensive issue of all of this and that is the creation of fear in the citizens of Canada. I go back again to the three steps I have mentioned already. Step one, create a problem that does not exist. Step two, propose a solution that does not address the problem. Step three, let others pick up the pieces.
I agree that the problem is fear. I have talked to a lot of constituents, particularly during the election, and there is fear out there. The Conservative Party fans that fear. Why? Because it is politically expedient and that party will not choose to confront fear with fact. Fear will always trump fact. This is really nasty politics and it is a disservice to Canadians.
In conclusion, the government is all about hysteria. Fear trumps facts. This is bad politics and it is a disservice to our Canadian electorate.
Mr. Randy Kamp (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I would have thought that the member could have taken a little bit of time to write a new speech from his Bill C-9 speech, but apparently not. 
In both speeches he used the phrase over and over again, “create a problem that does not exist”. I hope he is willing to defend that comment, if somebody decides to maybe send a ten percenter into his riding or put it in the newspaper or something, for all those people in his riding who have been the victims of crime and who do not feel very safe in their homes.
If he wants to make the case that somehow this is, as he said, just propaganda; there is no real problem; it is all being imagined; it is only those scary Conservatives that are somehow creating a problem that does not exist; then frankly, I think this is nonsense.
He referred to these studies and that somehow they do not make the case. Let me just quote from one of them. This is right from the study. It says:
 A study of the effects of New Jersey's 1981 Graves Act, which mandated a minimum prison sentence for anyone convicted of one of several serious crimes while using or carrying a firearm, found that the proportion of New Jersey homicides involving firearms decreased significantly between 1980 and 1986. 
The hon. member says that somehow this is somewhat ambiguous. I do not know what is ambiguous about that. It goes on to say:
 Gun homicides, the study found, decreased significantly in all six cities after mandatory sentencing laws were enacted. Assaults and armed robberies decreased somewhat in certain cities. 
Stephen Levitt, who some say is the most brilliant young economist in the U.S. and has studied with Daniel Kessler, did study that proposition 8 law in California. Maybe the hon. member could tell me how this could be misinterpreted. He wrote:
 Our results suggest that criminals respond to the severity and not just the certainty of sentences, a result that is predicted by the economic model of crime but has proven elusive empirically. This suggests that the increasing reliance on sentence enhancements in both state law and the federal sentencing guidelines may represent an effective means of reducing crime. 
Let me conclude with this comment. Let us say, for example, that I am a potential gun criminal and I am thinking of committing a crime with a gun. The member is saying I am not very smart and maybe that might be true, and that I do not take into account the fact that if I go out and commit this offence, maybe it is a third offence, with this new law I will get five years instead of three years. So, if I do not take that into account and I commit the crime anyway, this new law will give me five years instead of three years under the old law. The member implies that somehow this is not working. I may commit this offence or maybe I may re-offend. Frankly, I do not care if--
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The member has now taken up three minutes of the five minute question and comment period. There are other people rising. I need to give the hon. member for Scarborough—Guildwood some time to respond.
[Interjection]
John McKay: Mr. Speaker, I am sure it was not by design on the part of the hon. member to get in a mini speech while asking a question.
He cites a 1981 American study. That would put it at about a 25 year old study, in a different country, a different legal environment, and a different sentencing environment. I question the usefulness and value of any kind of study such as that.
My preference in terms of real evidence is to cite page 5 from the Library of Parliament's legislative summary on Bill C-10 which says at paragraph 3:
 Mandatory minimum sentences are a subset of criminal penalties generally. Accordingly, studies on the overall effect of prison sentences on crime rates and recidivism may be useful. One Canadian meta-analysis found little difference in general recidivism rates, regardless of length of incarceration or whether the offender was given a prison or community sanction. In fact, prison produced slight increases in recidivism. 
Surprise, we will end up with more people in jail for longer. That is the result of dumb legislation.
In a follow-up meta-analysis focusing on juvenile, female and minority offenders, it was tentatively concluded that increasingly lengths of incarceration were associated with slightly greater increases in recidivism. Not only are we putting the general public into prison longer, we are actually exaggerating some of the social fissures in our own society among juveniles, females and minorities.
That is just brilliant public policy. I appreciate that the hon. member does not like to deal with facts. The government opposite just hates facts when they interfere with its propaganda. There is no crime wave in this country. In fact, the crime statistics show that crime is actually declining in this country, including my own community.
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am very proud on behalf of the NDP to enter the debate on Bill C-10, an act to amend the Criminal Code dealing with minimum penalties. Mr. Speaker, as you well know coming from Manitoba, I represent the inner city riding of Winnipeg Centre. It is a very low income riding, and I am not proud to say, a riding that is very prone to some of the predictable consequences of chronic long term poverty, which has a greater likelihood to be associated with or a victim of crimes, particularly crimes of a violent nature.
I am pleased to have this opportunity. I asked for the opportunity to join the debate today. On behalf of the people of my riding of Winnipeg Centre, I feel duty bound to represent them on an issue dealing with criminal justice and the criminal justice system.
When I survey the residents of my riding, the inner city, the core area of Winnipeg Centre, and ask them what the most important issue facing them is, overwhelmingly the number one top of mind issue they cite is crime, safety, safe streets and criminal justice issues, by a factor of four to one. I was shocked the last time I polled people in my riding in a survey of this nature. My colleague from Yellowknife may find the same when he surveys the people in his riding. Those issues are what come to mind first because they are the issues closest to people's day to day lives.
In surveys in Canada generally, the number one issue that comes to mind is almost always health care. I can say that by a factor of four to one the issues of crime and safety are greater in my riding than the issue of health care. Tax cuts is a factor of five or six to one. Of all the other issues that seem to be prioritized in any election campaign or the federal government's top priorities, almost to a person in my riding, crime and safety are the number one priority.
Having said that, I wanted to enter this debate because I think the people in my riding would want to know that Parliament is seized of the issue, that Parliament is listening to Canadians and their very reasonable plea. Canadians just want to be able to feel safe on their streets. They want to be able to walk down the streets free of interference and mischief, like in the good old days. 
When I talk to people in my riding some say, “It was not like this not long ago. When I was growing up, kids were sent to the corner store with 25¢ to buy a quart of milk and did not think twice about it. Now nobody does that”. Right after supper every kid in the neighbourhood would go out to play and they would go as far as they could get in a certain period of time. They had a turnaround time; they had to get back in time for last call, but they were free to roam the streets, play, develop and socialize. 
Now there is not a kid in my neighbourhood who goes anywhere without a play date. Kids are driven everywhere. They pre-arrange appointments to play with other eight year olds. Their moms drive them in minivans to play dates and drive them home again. Parents do not feel safe letting their kids go out to play even street hockey. This is a real tragedy of our time. Whether it is real or perceived, it is real enough in the minds of the people whom I represent. They tell me as their member of Parliament that is what they want action on more than anything else.
I am glad that in the final days of this spring session of the 39th Parliament we are talking about criminal justice, that we are talking about safety, and talking about crime in the streets. The incidence of poverty in Winnipeg Centre is high, unfortunately. I am not proud of this, but I have the poorest riding in Canada by whatever measurement one uses. Whether it is family income or incidence of poverty, Winnipeg Centre is the poorest riding in Canada. As such, perhaps disproportionately it is faced with the predictable consequences of chronic long term poverty.
During the election campaign, I believe it was in early January of 2006, there was a tragic incident that brought the whole subject of mandatory minimum sentences to the forefront. There was a shooting death in the city of Toronto. I hate to share this over top of the heckling from my colleague from Ontario who does not like this bill apparently, but I had a similar incident in my riding not three blocks from my office where a 17-year-old, perfectly innocent nice young man was caught in the crossfire between two gangs. Gangsters were popping off rounds playing with their guns essentially, picking each other off and they picked off an innocent bystander.
I hope members will join me in mourning the loss of that young innocent person and the grieving the family goes through and the feeling of senselessness about it. 
How did we ever descend to this point? This was an ordinary Winnipeg neighbourhood and now people will not sleep in the rooms that share the outer walls of their houses. They do not want to be next to the outside wall for fear a stray bullet will hit one of their kids. They sleep in the inner rooms of their houses. How did it come to that in 2006, in Winnipeg, Manitoba, in Canada? They want to know. We do not profess to have all the answers but they deserve to know at least that we are paying attention to it and that we are doing our best to address their concerns.
Mandatory minimum sentencing is something we frequently hear is a knee-jerk reaction, that it is not tested and not proven. I will say quite openly that I will only support things that I believe will have the results I am after and that we are seeking to achieve.
There are many reasons that we structure our sentencing within the criminal justice system, only one of which is actually punitive. Punishing people may be one of the lesser motivations in terms of our sentencing. One is that we want to be safe. 
I see I am running short of time. Let me say simply that the NDP justice critic, the member for Windsor—Tecumseh, has advised us that we are interested in this bill to the point where we would like to see it go to committee for assessment. At committee we can propose what we think are improvements to the bill to make sure it actually achieves what it seeks to achieve. That is a reasonable position that we are taking. 
Members who stand up and condemn this bill in a blanket fashion are showing a wilful blindness to the wishes of Canadians who want this subject addressed. They are not listening to their constituents. If they asked them, their constituents would tell them, “We want you to make our streets safe. Whatever it takes is what we want you seized with”.
The NDP wants this bill to go to committee. I am happy to have had this opportunity to speak to it.
The Deputy Speaker: The time for questions and comments on the debate by the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre will have to take place the next time the bill is before the House.
We will now proceed to statements by members. 

Statements By Members
Portuguese Heritage MonthMr. Gary Goodyear (Cambridge, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the Portuguese community in Cambridge and North Dumfries. 
Tomorrow, June 10, marks the anniversary of the death of a famous poet for the Portuguese community. As well, the month of June represents Portuguese Heritage Month. We are proud that the Portuguese communities across Canada get together and celebrate these wonderful events. 
In particular, my riding of Cambridge has one of the most vital and vibrant Portuguese communities in all of Canada. I was proud to be with that community last weekend and will be with them this weekend to help them celebrate and bring their heritage to the entire community. I would encourage communities across Canada to join in and enjoy these most favourable events.
Jimmie LeslieLloyd St. Amand: Mr. Speaker, I recently attended the funeral of Jimmie Leslie, a 45-year-old adult who was blind, non-verbal and had severe intellectual disabilities. In spite of these difficulties, Jimmy had a most profound effect on his terrific parents, James and Kay Leslie, and on the staff of Brantwood Centre, a wonderful facility in Brantford.
Some years ago Jimmie's father wrote a letter to his son at Christmas. I quote, “I have not been able to teach you the prayers of the young and give you the hope promised by a Christmas long ago. You do not speak but in your silence and in your innocence I know that hope will ever be there for you. You have no future and no past but you are here and for that I am ever grateful”.
The staff at Brantwood Centre attended Jimmie's funeral in large numbers. They shared what they loved about his uniqueness. One staff member read from her poem, “Your spirit has touched many, you made a difference in our lives. You taught us all what love is about, and how to care for someone right”.
François RoyMr. Richard Nadeau (Gatineau, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on May 28, François Roy, a resident of Gatineau, ran his Marathon of dignity to help build social housing. 
Mr. Roy is the coordinator of Logemen'occupe, an organization dedicated to protecting the rights of low-income renters. He ran 42 km in four hours and 13 minutes, raising $10,000 toward this noble goal. Some people have to spend as much as half of what little they earn to keep a roof over their heads. The federal government should be inspired by this generous action and increase its funding for social housing and the homeless until it transfers all responsibility for housing, along with the related funds, to the Government of Quebec.
The Bloc commends Mr. Roy for his courage and determination and hopes that Logemen'occupe will remain active for many years to come.
Territorial Formula FinancingDennis Bevington: Mr. Speaker, on Monday the Minister of Finance took delivery of a report on territorial formula financing produced by the expert panel mandated to review these programs. On Monday the minister said he was going to review the report.
The people of Canada's north need immediate changes to how their governments are financed. 
Importantly, the report calls for a reduction in the amount Ottawa claws back from the territories' own source revenues each year. It also calls for resource revenues to be excluded from the calculation of own source revenues. I agree with these. 
However, I cannot agree with the report's recommendation for the continuation of using population as the basis for determining territorial funding. In the submission from the three territories, they called this approach inadequate and inappropriate.
I hope the minister will heed the views of the three territories when he reviews this report. The territories are only asking for a fair shake from Ottawa that will allow them to achieve their great promise and potential in the development of this country.
Prairie GiantMr. Tom Lukiwski (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to make a statement that was first reflected by my hon. colleague from Wascana. It deals with a production by Minds Eye, a film company from Regina which, along with the CBC, has done a disservice to the Canadian people.
 Prairie Giant, the mini-series about Tommy Douglas, was a dishonest portrayal of Saskatchewan history. In particular, the portrayal of the hon. James Gardiner. the former Liberal premier of Saskatchewan, was not only inaccurate, but the producers attempted to rewrite Canadian history in a partisan, dishonest manner. 
Even worse, the CBC dismisses criticisms of this movie by saying that this portrayal of real historical figures is in actuality a work of fiction. This is wrong. If this is truly a work of fiction, why is it being distributed to schools for classroom usage? 
The CBC's position is unacceptable. The citizens of Saskatchewan and the Gardiner family deserve a full and complete explanation.
HomelessnessMr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, two important organizations in the Outaouais may soon be closing their doors because of the Conservative government's inaction. These two resources for the homeless, Appart Adojeune and the LAB at the Outaouais centre for drug addiction prevention and intervention did not receive their funding from the government. 
Members may recall that the previous government established the Supporting Communities Partnership Initiative (SCPI) to help homeless people, among other things. 
Nowadays, more and more women and young people find themselves in this situation, and traditional services to help the homeless are not necessarily meeting these new needs. Innovative organizations, such as Appart Adojeune and the LAB, are providing the support this troubled segment of the Canadian population needs. 
This matter is urgent. I urge the minister responsible for this issue to renew funding for these two organizations so that their services will not be interrupted.
Stephen Leacock AssociationMr. Bruce Stanton (Simcoe North, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the great Canadian author Stephen Leacock once wrote:
 A man will freely confess that he has no ear for music, or no taste for fiction, or even no interest in religion. But I have yet to see the man who announces that he has no sense of humour. 
Since 1946, the Stephen Leacock Association of the city of Orillia in my riding has awarded the Leacock Medal for Humour to the Canadian citizen who authors the best book of humour in the current year. Winners of this medal include such literary icons as Robertson Davies, W.O. Mitchell, Farley Mowat and Mordecai Richler.
This year the associates have awarded the medal and its $10,000 cash award, courtesy of the TD Bank Financial Group, to British Columbia's Arthur Black for his book Pitch Black.
I congratulate Mr. Black for winning this award for the third time, and I commend the Stephen Leacock Association for its continuing promotion of humorous Canadian literature.
Rose DrummondMs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am proud to pay tribute today to a family business in my riding that is celebrating its 10-year anniversary. Rose Drummond employs some 50 people and produces approximately 3 million roses a year.
This family rose business is very well known. It is one of the biggest businesses in Drummondville and is the largest rose producer in eastern Canada.
The owners of the business, Jean-Denis Lampron and Diane Lampron, are very humanitarian and extremely generous. In addition to working with Development and Peace for many years to help people in developing countries, they are dedicated to several causes such as the Breast Cancer Foundation and the Fondation du Centre hospitalier universitaire de Sherbrooke.
Congratulations to Mr. and Mrs. Lampron and the entire Rose Drummond team for 10 great years. So much passion and success deserves to be celebrated.
CUPE OntarioMr. Dave Van Kesteren (Chatham-Kent—Essex, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I condemn the recent decision by CUPE Ontario to boycott the state of Israel. In abruptly deciding to speak for its hundreds of thousands of members, on the Jewish Sabbath no less, CUPE Ontario has decided to take a one-sided, biased and wrong view on the Middle East conflict.
Israel is a modern, progressive society, with freedom for men and women, and tolerance for religions and all cultures. It is the Israeli people and the Israeli government that have been actively pursuing peace in the face of constant terror. Now they are forced to do so with the terror group Hamas that wishes to end Israel's existence.
The hypocrisy of CUPE Ontario is stunning, condemning Israel while in effect endorsing terrorism and terrorists who seek to restrict all freedom-loving people through violence.
 I stand with Israel, and ask CUPE Ontario to rethink its decision and do the same.
Development AssistanceMichael Savage: Mr. Speaker, we are fortunate to live in Canada, a wealthy country. Most of the world's population is not so lucky and much of the world suffers from extreme poverty. Well over one billion people live in absolute poverty. Half of the world lives on less than $2 a day and 50,000 people a day die from poverty-related causes. 
It is hard not to believe that we value the lives of the comfortable more than we value the lives of the poor when we allow this to continue.
 I have spoken in the House before about my support for reaching the millennium development goals of 0.7% of GNI for international development. I believe it is a reasonable target for a rich country.
 We can take a positive step by supporting Bill C-293 introduced by the member for Scarborough—Guildwood on Wednesday, which would ensure that Canadian development assistance is focused on poverty reduction, and send it to committee as soon as possible.
 Canada has increased its development assistance, but we need to recognize the daily crisis of poverty in much of the world and our responsibility as a wealthy nation to work toward its eradication.
West Coast ExpressMr. James Moore (Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, CPC): Mr. Speaker, West Coast Express is a popular and efficient commuter rail service linking Mission, Port Haney, Maple Ridge, Pitt Meadows, Port Coquitlam, Coquitlam and Port Moody with downtown Vancouver.
Over 18 million riders have used West Coast Express since its opening. My constituents want it supported and expanded.
I have listened to my constituents, and our government is taking action. In our budget we fulfilled our campaign commitment to offer a tax credit for the purchase of monthly public transit passes. This new measure, effective on July 1, will mean real savings for West Coast Express riders.
As an example, riders purchasing the monthly Port Moodie-Waterfront pass will save $283.65 a year and seniors and students will save $157.77 a year. On top of this tax credit, we have also tabled legislation, Bill C-11, that will allow for the expansion and growth of West Coast Express in the future.
Tri-City residents have told me that they like and support West Coast Express, and I and the Conservative government have listened and are delivering for the Tri-Cities.
The EnvironmentMr. David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, how would one like to be told that one's children cannot go out for nine days to play or that one's elderly parents have to stay inside and cannot leave their home.
That was the situation in Hamilton last year where we had nine days of severe smog. This year we have already had three smog days and summer has barely begun. Hamilton is not alone. Cities like Halifax, Toronto, Calgary and Vancouver are all suffering smog days too.
Studies show that more 5,000 premature deaths across Canada can be attributed to air pollution each year, but the Conservatives are ignoring this environmental crisis, refuting Canada's Kyoto obligations and pretending that global warming is not a global threat.
We need to encourage use of public transit and establish a clean car strategy. We need to find better energy sources so we can close operations like the Nanticoke coal burning plant that is responsible for so much of Hamilton's smog. We need to reinstate the popular and effective EnerGuide program that the Conservative government killed.
The people of Hamilton call upon the government to act now so that once again it is safe for our kids to go out and play.
City of Toronto French CommitteeMr. Mario Silva (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in 1981, the City of Toronto French Committee was created in order to meet the needs of Toronto's Francophone population.
Over the course of my nine years on the Toronto City Council, I had the honour of sitting on that committee.
I am proud to have contributed to making the Toronto French Committee a valuable, active organization dedicated to improving the quality of French-language services in Toronto.
As a committee member, I fought to obtain more services in French, more funding and bilingual signage, as well as more publications provided in French. 
I am proud of my work with the French Committee. I ask all members to join me in paying tribute to its 25th anniversary. I wish the committee every success.
Huntingdon Textile WorkersMrs. Claude DeBellefeuille (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on May 18, hundreds of textile workers from Huntingdon came to Parliament Hill to voice their distress.
After being victims of international treaties that led to massive plant closures in their industry, these workers saw the federal government terminate the Program for Older Worker Adjustment without replacing it.
Most of these workers spent their whole lives working in factories that are now closed. A few years away from what they hoped would be a happy retirement, many are left with nothing. After contributing to our collective wealth for their whole lives, these people feel betrayed.
Many of them are watching the time slip away, waiting for the day they have to go on welfare. That day is fast approaching.
The Bloc Québécois hears this cry from the heart and urges the government to immediately put in place a support program for workers who are victims of mass layoffs.
ZimbabweHon. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today we once again call upon the Government of Canada to indict Zimbabwe's President Robert Mugabe for crimes against humanity. Why?
 Mr. Mugabe is killing his people in slow motion. He has forced children into youth gangs and has had his thugs rape, torture and murder innocent civilians. He has given farms to his cronies, including his wife. He has crushed basic social services, causing inflation to run at over 1,000% per month. A staggering 3,000 people a week are dying of AIDS and 25% of the population is HIV positive. He has even used food as a weapon, withholding food from the poorest of the poor and has bulldozed 700,000 of the poorest homes in the country. He has even compared himself to Hitler.
 Crimes against humanity are occurring in Zimbabwe. I call upon the Prime Minister to seize the day, use our court system, use our justice system and indict Robert Mugabe for crimes against humanity.
The EnvironmentMr. Christian Paradis (Mégantic—L'Érable, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the House today about Canada's newest coal-fired steam turbine generator located in Wetaskiwin, Alberta. 
The Genesee 3 power plant cuts greenhouse gas emissions of carbon dioxide by up to 52% compared to older coal plants through the use of new technology. Genesee 3's environmental performance matches power stations that burn natural gas, but does so for a fraction of the price and shows that coal, with the right technology, can be clean. 
Not only does this Alberta plant reduce greenhouse gases, but, like the Conservative plan to increase the ethanol content of gasoline, it helps to keep clean the air that we breathe, keeping harmful pollutants out of the atmosphere.
The Genesee 3 power plant is an example of a technologically-based plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions without any adverse effect on the economy. This technology is ready to be used as part of a made in Canada plan to keep our air clean.
Water Safety WeekMr. Mario Laframboise (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we cannot stress enough the need to be careful in, on or near water.
We would do well to remember some facts about drowning. It is the third most common cause of accidental death in Canada among people under 60; 83% of drowning victims are men; 55% of victims are between 18 and 49 years of age; 62% of victims drown while taking part in recreational activities. The most common such activities are swimming, fishing and boating. More than half of drownings in Quebec and Canada occur between May and August. Alcohol is a factor in 38% of boating-related drowning deaths. 
The Bloc Québécois wishes Canadians a happy Water Safety Week from June 3 to 10, 2006 and a good summer. Be very careful.

Oral Questions
Canada--U.S. RelationsHon. Bill Graham (Leader of the Opposition, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Congressman Hostettler, the chair of the committee studying the passport law, yesterday described Toronto as a breeding ground for terrorists, referring to south Toronto as the type of “enclave” that breeds radicalism.
We have learned how, if unchallenged, this type of misinformation can spread in the United States. For years after 9/11, congressmen and newspapers were saying that the perpetrators came from Canada.
What is the government doing to stand up to these unjustified and abusive attacks on Canada, making sure that the American media and the politicians understand and speak the truth?
Mr. Jason Kenney (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I join with the Leader of the Opposition in repudiating those completely uninformed and ignorant remarks that we heard yesterday from one misinformed person in Washington. I am sorry to see that the Leader of the Opposition is amplifying those totally misinformed remarks.
The administration in the United States and the majority of the American media have congratulated the government and security services for protecting Canadians and for protecting Canadian and continental security with the successful arrests of earlier this week. We will continue to stand for strong Canadian security.
Bill Graham: Mr. Speaker, that is just not good enough. Our very economy is at stake.
When Mr. McKenna was our ambassador, he led a vigorous campaign to thwart this type of misinformation.
When the current Prime Minister was in opposition, he went to the United States to criticize his own country on Fox News.
Why is the Prime Minister not in the United States today to defend our country or at least to do what is necessary to safeguard our reputation and our economy?
Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, the government has made considerable effort to point out to the United States the success of security forces, such as the RCMP, in the security operation that took place this week.
Our ambassador, Mr. Wilson, is working extremely hard in Washington to make it very clear that Canada is a partner in national and continental security. The ambassador was here yesterday with a member of the American Congress in order to demonstrate the security of Canada.
Bill Graham: Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to represent the riding of Toronto Centre, so I am in the very enclave that is the hotbed of these “radical” discussions.
 I am proud of the fact that we have a large Muslim population. They come from all over the world. They are Canadians. They are hard-working, law-respecting members of our community trying to make a better life for themselves and their children. 
They do not deserve to be unjustly, improperly and viciously attacked by American lawmakers, but if they are, they expect their Prime Minister and government to stand up and defend them, not attack us for amplifying it. Where is their defence on behalf of the government that is supposed to represent them and represent Canadian values?
Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is terribly helpful to exaggerate uninformed, ignorant and, agreeably, offensive remarks coming from one member of the American Congress. What is important is that, as the ambassador demonstrated yesterday, there are many members of the U.S. Congress who understand and appreciate the strong actions of the Canadian security forces to maintain continental security.
The government has underscored at every opportunity the importance of the contribution of people of different faith backgrounds to the Canadian mosaic. We will stand by those people and we reject utterly any suggestion that Canada or its immigration system is a haven for these kinds of actions.
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval—Les Îles, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canada's immigration system is under attack south of the border. Self-styled security experts claim that our immigration policies are the root of terrorism in North America. They have suggested that the only solution to this problem is to close our borders to new immigrants.
Can the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration tell the House what measures he took to defend Canada's immigration system against these unjustified attacks?
Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, I repeat that Canada's ambassador in Washington is working hard to ensure that the U.S. respects Canada's national security. This week, our security agencies were very successful. We will continue to emphasize that Canada's immigration system is working well. We will continue to protect Canada's interests south of the border.
Raymonde Folco: Mr. Speaker, I do not see why the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration cannot answer these questions, which are directly related to his portfolio.
He made racist remarks about Asians who have trouble learning French and English.
Perhaps he should focus more on his portfolio than on developing a background in linguistics, but my question is for the minister. What is the minister doing to protect Canada's reputation as a country with a first rate immigration system and to maintain our close government relations with the U.S.?
Hon. Monte Solberg (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I do not know who that congressman is, but I know who Condoleezza Rice is. The president's former national security adviser and now secretary of state has praised Canada for its efforts in the war on terror. The U.S. praised us for the arrests that were made the other weekend.
When the member gets up and makes the kind of outrageous remark she just made, she undermines her credibility.
Natural ResourcesMs. Monique Guay (Rivière-du-Nord, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Environment Canada maintains that we have had the hottest spring since record-keeping began. This is just more proof that it is imperative to do something about global warming. Without any warning, the government axed the EnerGuide program and placed a moratorium on the WPPI program, the Wind Power Production Incentive.
How can the Minister of Natural Resources be so inconsistent by freezing the WPPI program when just yesterday he was boasting about the merits of wind energy during his testimony in committee?
Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, let us be clear. The government supports initiatives for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, for reducing pollution and for ensuring that every taxpayer dollar is spent effectively. That is why the Minister of Natural Resources is monitoring all the programs: to ensure that they are effective and that taxpayers are getting the best bang for their buck.
Monique Guay: Mr. Speaker, they are cutting programs one after the other. What will that do to the environment?
The moratorium on the wind energy incentive causes uncertainty and holds up development of this energy system.
Can the Minister of Natural Resources promise immediately to lift the moratorium and free up the money needed to relaunch the program?
Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, the government is in the process of monitoring all the relevant programs to ensure they are effective because the former government spent hundreds of millions of dollars on these programs and did not get any results. The only result they got was a 26% increase in greenhouse gas emissions. The Liberals missed their target for greenhouse gas emissions by 35%.
This government will ensure that public money is spent effectively in these programs.
TransportMario Laframboise: Mr. Speaker, in 2005 alone, there were 195 derailments on major rail lines, 47% more than the yearly average for 2000 to 2004.
The federal government is letting rail infrastructure deteriorate, even though rail transport is a logical tool to use in the fight against increased greenhouse gas emissions. 
Will the government finally wake up to this reality and assume its responsibilities for rail safety in order to reduce the risk of derailments, which are increasing at an alarming rate?
Hon. Lawrence Cannon (Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, CPC): Mr. Speaker, obviously we take this seriously, and we are looking at these issues, which are extremely important, as the hon. member stated.
Safety is always extremely important. We take the necessary action after incidents occur.
During the most recent parliamentary commission, we had the opportunity to answer these questions. Transport Canada acts to ensure the safety not only of the public, but obviously of the ambient environment as well.
Mario Laframboise: Mr. Speaker, in Europe, the maintenance and modernization of rail lines have made derailments rare occurrences and have resulted in safe, reliable rail service. Safe rail lines form the foundation for developing passenger and freight transport.
If the government wants environmental credibility, what is it waiting for to make sure rail infrastructure will be rehabilitated? It would be a step in the right direction.
Lawrence Cannon: Mr. Speaker, obviously, our departmental authorities have already analyzed the suggestions made by my hon. colleague. Programs are in place. Although we are still very concerned, we are continuing to fund and do what needs to be done under the circumstances.
National DefenceDavid Christopherson: Mr. Speaker, yesterday at defence committee, Conservative members pulled the chairs out from under an expert panel on Afghanistan. The Polaris Institute, CARE Canada and the Canadian Council for International Co-operation, all internationally respected for the important work they do, were silenced as Conservative members voted to shut down the committee, clearly a policy of cut and run.
What information was the government trying to hide from? Is it this government's policy to just silence people it does not agree with?
Jason Kenney: No, it is not, Mr. Speaker, but I will tell members what the NDP policy is. It is to shut down the operation of our diplomats, our aid workers and our men and women in uniform in Afghanistan who are there to combat terrorism and to ensure that the Taliban does not come back into power and push women back into that kind of terrible situation with respect to human rights.
I think the NDP, which pretends to be a champion of human rights, should answer as to why it wants to abandon the people of Afghanistan and abandon our men and women who are in the field fighting the good fight for this country.
David Christopherson: Mr. Speaker, I am not at all surprised that the hon. member wants to talk about something different, because it was the most disgraceful thing I have seen in 20 years of public life. These were Canadians and Canadian groups invited by this Parliament through a House of Commons standing committee and it was the government members who voted to shut them down, to silence them. 
The Liberals have nothing to say here. If they had been in their seats at that committee, we could have overruled the government.
When is the government going to do the honourable thing and offer an apology to these respected Canadian groups?
Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, let me tell members something. The 2,300 Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan, the hundreds of Canadian aid workers and the dozens of Canadian diplomats risking their lives to build a stable and democratic society in Afghanistan do not really care about the proceedings of a committee.
What they care about is knowing that the people and Parliament of Canada stand behind their courageous efforts. This government does. We want to know why the NDP is willing to abandon the women and children of Afghanistan and allow the Taliban to recreate its reign of terrorism.
EmploymentHon. Dominic LeBlanc (Beauséjour, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government's contempt for the people of Atlantic Canada and Quebec continues. The absurd comments made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, to the effect that unemployed workers should simply move away from their regions, demonstrate the true regional development policy of the Conservative Party.
Will the government put this member, with his Jurassic Park mentality, back in his place immediately and reassure workers that they do not have to buy a bus ticket in order to provide for their families?
Hon. Loyola Hearn (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, CPC): Mr. Speaker, those people can twist and turn comments any way they like. The truth of the matter is that Canadians move right across this country. In Atlantic Canada we welcomed people from the west who brought expertise to work in our oil field. They welcome us to go out there and find good jobs. People can even move back and forth, work for a few weeks, then come home for a few weeks, and keep their families where they live.
This is a good policy of moving around our country. In order to build this country, we should build it with Canadians. We do not discriminate against Canadians because of which coast they live on.
Dominic LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is talking about voluntary mobility of the labour force. The issue here is a forced program to ask unemployed people to move from one part of the country to the other. The parliamentary secretary wants to provide one-way bus tickets for unemployed Atlantic Canadians. It was not a slip of the tongue. He said it very clearly in committee. We believe that R. B. Bennett may be alive and well in that caucus.
Will the government realize that economic development is about regional investment and not about forced one-way bus tickets to move people from one region to another?
Hon. Greg Thompson (Minister of Veterans Affairs, CPC): Mr. Speaker, that is the kind of fearmongering that member and his party have engaged in for years. 
Here is their record for Atlantic Canada. They opposed free trade. They could not get a softwood lumber deal. They ignored productivity. They starved post-secondary education in this country for 14 years. They failed on an immigration policy. That is their record.
We have done more in four months than they did in four terms.
Michael Savage: Mr. Speaker, once again the radical agenda of the government has been shown and the attitude for ACOA laid bare for all to see. 
The minister stood in the House not 24 hours ago and flatly denied a federal proposal to use taxpayer dollars to ship Atlantic Canadians off to Alberta like a herd of unemployed cattle. His own colleague asked: “What are we doing to send [them], either temporarily or permanently, across the country...to get them into northern Alberta to keep the economy going...?” 
I suppose this is the Conservative plan to defeat what they call the culture of defeat.
When will the minister apologize to all Atlantic Canadians for this radical policy?
Hon. Diane Finley (Minister of Human Resources and Social Development, CPC): Mr. Speaker, what I would like to know is when the hon. member will apologize to Canadians for misrepresenting the proceedings in that committee.
What he said is absolutely false and that is why not one of those members has had the nerve to quote from the record of yesterday's meeting. They know they do not have a leg to stand on.
Michael Savage: Mr. Speaker, no one from Atlantic Canada could stand up on that side of the House to defend Atlantic Canada. The Liberal Party will stand up for Atlantic Canada all the time.
I know the ACOA minister may not have the ear of the Prime Minister, which may explain the refusal to condemn a ridiculous plan, but this is not acceptable to Atlantic Canadians or anyone else.
When will the government learn to respect the real needs of unemployed workers and not just offer them a state sponsored westbound ticket?
Greg Thompson: Mr. Speaker, this is again the type of fearmongering that member and that party are famous for with regard to Atlantic Canada.
I want to give an example of what we are doing in our first budget. We are reducing personal income taxes, business taxes, corporate taxes, breeding a climate for investment in Atlantic Canada which results in job creation.
The Liberal Party's record is a record of failure in terms of Atlantic Canada and job creation. We have done more in four months than the Liberals did in four terms. They should be ashamed of themselves.
Agri-FoodClaude DeBellefeuille: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Chair of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food tabled in this House the first report of the committee, which calls on the government to limit imports of milk protein concentrates through regulatory means, namely Article XXVIII of the GATT.
Can the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food simply answer this question: does he intend to respect the will of the committee and of the House, which voted unanimously to fully protect the supply management system, and take definitive action on this matter?
Mr. Jacques Gourde (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question. We recognize the concerns of milk producers with regard to imports of milk ingredients not subject to the Customs Tariff.
We will defend supply management. It is an absolute priority. We are monitoring very closely the situation of milk proteins exceeding this level and, together with the industry, we will examine ways of solving the problem.
Claude DeBellefeuille: Mr. Speaker, this is a serious issue.
Just this week, the minister was defending supply management in this House. How can he claim to be working with this system while permitting the violation of one of its three basic principles, the protection of borders, by limiting the import of goods that are supply managed?
Jacques Gourde: Mr. Speaker, the solutions to these challenges must be developed jointly with Canadian milk producers and processors. I am pleased that producers and processors have accepted my invitation and that of the minister to work together to find solutions to the major challenges faced by the dairy industry. This working group is the best means of finding solutions that will be accepted by all parties.
HealthMs. Nicole Demers (Laval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, people infected with HIV-AIDS are fighting all the way to the Court of Appeal. Some are dying as a result of not getting drugs that are essential to their survival. In the meantime, surgeons, through the special access program, have no problem getting silicone implants to perform breast enhancement procedures.
How can the Minister of Health explain denied access to drugs that could save lives while there are no limitations on implants that could make thousands of women sick?
Hon. Tony Clement (Minister of Health and Minister for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario, CPC): Mr. Speaker, these are two different programs.
There is an access program for breast implants. Obviously It is important to protect women's health. There is another program for drugs. As I was saying in committee, it is important to have a process, just as it is important to have access to these drugs.
Nicole Demers: Mr. Speaker, let him explain that to the families of those who have died waiting for answers about their drugs.
Are we to understand that through its lack of control over the distribution of breast implants, Health Canada is much more interested in protecting the industry than in protecting women's health?
Tony Clement: Mr. Speaker, I do not agree with the hon. member.
It is important to protect women and there is a process for accessing these implants. It is important to protect patients, and there is another process for access to drugs. Nonetheless, if there is a need, I will support it.
EmploymentHon. Joe McGuire (Egmont, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, at the human resources committee, the member for Fort McMurray--Athabasca, who has a massive number of Atlantic Canada voters in his riding, either knows nothing about his constituents or his country or else wants to transport everyone out of Atlantic Canada to work in his industries.
Instead of advocating the removal of families and the human infrastructure from Atlantic Canada, why is the government not doing more to provide support for the new and traditional industries in Atlantic Canada?
Greg Thompson: Mr. Speaker, that is the previous minister of the last government who fell out of bed one morning and said that he would have an immigration policy for Atlantic Canada. He failed miserably on that. 
That same minister fell out of of bed one morning and said that he would have a port strategy for Atlantic Canada and, guess what? He had no port strategy; a complete failure. That is the Liberal record.
On top of that, the Liberals are distorting the very statements the member made yesterday in committee. That is the old Liberal way. If they repeat a fabrication long enough they expect people to believe it. Canadians do not believe that party because its record is a record of failure in Atlantic Canada.
Joe McGuire: Mr. Speaker, I will tell the hon. member what we did in Atlantic Canada over the past six years.
 In 2000, the Liberal government launched the Atlantic investment partnership, a $700 million investment to support economic development in Atlantic Canada. In addition, $708 million was added to the last Liberal budget, building on the recognized success of the first phase. In the past six years remarkable success has been made. The region has more R and D activity, more opportunities in rural communities, more exports, more foreign investment and more skilled entrepreneurs.
Why does the government not commit itself to the Atlantic investment fund instead of one-way tickets for Atlantic Canadians out of the region?
Greg Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I will have to repeat some of what I have said. 
That party opposed free trade. That party could not get a deal on softwood lumber. That party ignored productivity in Atlantic Canada. That party starved post-secondary education. That party did not deliver on an immigration strategy after promising to do so. 
Those numbers he mentioned are just simply numbers. His party did not deliver on any of those promises. In fact, in my home province the Liberals deserted us and left us on Point Lepreau--
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Oh, oh!
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I would remind hon. members that the people who have the floor are the ones who are supposed to be speaking, not everyone else. 
The hon. member for Cape Breton--Canso.
Veterans AffairsMr. Rodger Cuzner (Cape Breton—Canso, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last fall, during a rush of promises to garner votes for an impending election, the Prime Minister unequivocally promised to: 
 ...immediately extend Veterans Independence Program services to the widows of all Second World War and Korean War veterans regardless of when the Veteran died or how long they had been receiving the benefit before they passed away. 
So far the promises are nowhere to be found and in fact were not even mentioned in the budget. Has the Prime Minister changed his mind or by “immediately” does he mean when he gets around to it?
Greg Thompson: Mr. Speaker, the VIP is a successful program and we have every intention of honouring all our promises. The VIP is a program that allows a lot of veterans to stay at home and receive the kind of care they deserve from their own families.
We will enhance that program when necessary. We will probably do it very soon simply because we know it is good value for money. When that will occur, I do not know, but if they examine our record for the last four months, guess what? We have a habit of keeping our promises, unlike that government.
Rodger Cuzner: Mr. Speaker, the minister knows, everyone in this House knows and anyone who has done any work on Veterans Affairs knows the name of Joyce Carter. She is a constituent of mine who is a strong advocate for veterans' issues. She has a signed copy of a promise from the leader of that party to immediately institute the broad based VIP.
 When I sat in her kitchen last week she had one question. She asked, “Rodger, why did the Prime Minister lie to the widows? Why did he break his promise to the widows?” My question, on behalf of Joyce Carter and the widows--
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member knows that kind of language is unacceptable and that he cannot do indirectly what he is not supposed to do directly. Could he kindly take that back and rephrase the question, and very quickly?
[Interjection]
Rodger Cuzner: I will, Mr. Speaker. 
On behalf of Joyce Carter and the widows, why were those promises broken? Why did the Prime Minister break those promises?
Greg Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I know the member apologized for using that word but that is the word they use quite often and I can understand why he would use it so freely here in the House of Commons.
We are committed to veterans. We are delivering a wide range of programs to veterans. We have the best programs in the world for our veterans and we will continue to enhance those programs to benefit our soldiers, their wives and their families. 
The EnvironmentMr. Dean Del Mastro (Peterborough, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Liberals had 13 years to address the issue of mercury pollution. Despite saying that they care about the environment, the Liberals failed to take any action on this file. This government is committed to making real progress on issues that matter to Canadians.
 Could the environment minister tell us what this government has done to reduce mercury pollution and what the response has been from environmental groups?
Mr. Mark Warawa (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is quite right. The Liberals did absolutely nothing for the last 13 years. On Wednesday, the environment minister announced the plan to prevent the release of 10 tonnes of mercury over the next 10 years.
 Both Environmental Defence Canada and the Clean Air Foundation praised this announcement. Environmental Defence called it good news for the health of Canadians. Dr. Rick Smith said, “This is great news for the health of Canadians, particularly young children...”. The Clean Air Foundation said, “The proposal is a good first step toward protecting Canadians”.
Liberal Party of CanadaPat Martin: Mr. Speaker, where I come from, the only thing worse than egg-sucking dogs is when they start running in packs. It would seem there are feathers flying and chicken coops being plundered right across the country as the Liberal leadership candidates are using their parliamentary staff to promote their own Liberal Party members.
I do not want my taxpayer dollars being paid to underwrite the Liberal leadership campaign. I want to know what provisions in the accountability act we could put in place to plug this outrageous abuse of Elections Canada financing rules.
Hon. Rob Nicholson (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it never ends. Yesterday the Liberals were upset because ministers were following the rules and today we wake up and see headlines that say “Liberals using taxpayer-funded offices for campaign work”. I am quoting and I will table this if they would like.
One Liberal MP called the practice unethical and said that it runs deeper than just e-mails. “This is just the tip of the iceberg”, he said. We agree. This is deplorable but it is typical of what comes across the aisle from the Liberal Party of Canada.
Pat Martin: The fact is, Mr. Speaker, I do not really care if the Liberal Party cannot tell the difference between right and wrong. What I care about is this whole thing undermines people's confidence in the democratic process. An already jaded electorate will see this and be even less likely to take part in the democratic system.
Bill C-2 has some specific amendments to deal with those Liberal leadership loans that are really more like corporate donations. We want to know, will the Conservative Party support those amendments to curb that outrageous practice as well?
Rob Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, the member accurately characterizes what is happening in the Liberal party. Today it is the issue of tax funded offices. Last week it was a shake down of kids for campaign contributions.
 This underlines, once again, how important it is to bring back transparency and accountability in the government. That is why I want all members of Parliament to support the federal accountability act.
Supply ManagementMr. Jean-Claude D'Amours (Madawaska—Restigouche, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of International Trade said that we have to be prepared for the possibility that WTO negotiations might be unsuccessful. The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food said that Canada will not walk away from the negotiating table. The Conservatives are spending their time talking the talk, but let us remember that the former Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Andy Mitchell, walked the walk in Hong Kong to save supply management, even though there was an election going on. 
Given these contradictions, can somebody tell us what the government's position on WTO negotiations really is?
Jacques Gourde: Mr. Speaker, this government stood alone against 148 other countries to defend supply management, and we will continue to do so vigorously. We cannot discuss our negotiation tactics and strategies publicly on a daily basis. However, one thing is clear: Canada must stay at the negotiating table because it is in the best interest of our entire agricultural sector, including supply managed and export sectors. 
Jean-Claude D'Amours: Mr. Speaker, it is easy to see why the government is so reluctant to talk about its tactics for protecting supply management: it has none. Ministers from the Prairie provinces, as well as certain agricultural sectors, claims Canada is the only country at the table looking at sensitive products. The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food also said that being alone at the table is an untenable position for Canada. 
Does this mean that the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food will continue to support supply management at the WTO talks even though he, himself, said that this is an untenable position for Canada?
Jacques Gourde: Mr. Speaker, Canada will remain actively involved in the negotiations to ensure that we are in a position to propose an agreement that is in the best interest of Canadian agriculture, not to capitulate to some other proposal.
Hon. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday in committee the Minister of Agriculture said that the government was still trying to determine what Canada's best strategy would be with regard to WTO negotiations. He has also received pressure from some premiers and industry groups to take a more flexible approach with regard to supply management. He stated that Canada would be part of the WTO no matter what.
The farmers in Waterloo region are worried that the Minister of Agriculture will trade off our supply managed industries for a deal with the WTO. When will the ministers of the government get personally involved, like Andy Mitchell did, and ensure that we get the right deal for farmers?
Jacques Gourde: Mr. Speaker, Canada's agricultural tradition is recognized around the world. It is built on a solid footing and the solid values upheld by our Canadian farmers, such as family, hard work and honesty. Over the past 13 years, the Liberals denied those traditional farm values. With no vision for the future, the Liberals betrayed us.
Karen Redman: Mr. Speaker, our farmers deserve better than having them play politics with something that is this important.
The Minister of Agriculture said that we would stay at the WTO negotiations because Canada was a deal maker, not a deal breaker. He also said that there was significant pressure on marketing boards, but he refused to give any detail on Canada's position.
The Minister of Agriculture needs to admit that the government is abandoning Canada's long established strategy of defending our sensitive industries. We need to see a plan. Farmers deserve more than just pure rhetoric from the government.
Jacques Gourde: Mr. Speaker, I am extremely happy to answer that question.
Our government is determined to defend the interests of all Canadian producers, without exception. We have a long-term vision for agriculture. Under the Conservative government, Canadian agriculture will be world-renowned for its leadership.
Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations ActMr. Robert Vincent (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Brian Mulroney was Prime Minister of Canada in 1986 when Bill C-45 was adopted, becoming the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act. Part III of this law provides for measures to protect the health and safety of Parliament Hill employees. However, 20 years and four prime ministers later, Part III has never been proclaimed.
Why has the current Minister of Labour not yet announced his intention to enact this law without any further delay? 
Hon. Jean-Pierre Blackburn (Minister of Labour and Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, CPC): Mr. Speaker, in reply to my colleague's question, I would say that employees of Parliament Hill do not fall under the Canada Labour Code in this matter, but are governed by another law which does not touch on the issue raised by the member's question. 
Convention Against TortureMs. Diane Bourgeois (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the UN has introduced a convention against torture and other forms of cruelty, which Canada has ratified. However, it still has not ratified the optional protocol associated with the convention, unlike other countries such as the United Kingdom, Mexico and Spain.
Given the tumult over the Maher Arar affair and the difficulties facing Canadian soldiers in the treatment of Afghan prisoners, when will the government ratify this protocol? 
Mr. Peter Van Loan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Canada remains strongly committed to human rights. In fact, under our new government, there is a renewed commitment to human rights. We will be advancing that. We will be looking at the issues raised by the protocol on the treaty on torture in examining our appropriate next moves.
Canadian Wheat BoardHon. Ralph Goodale (Wascana, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the NDP members are the worst floor-crossers in the House. Their bodies do not change places but their principles do. They gave up on aboriginal people. They gave up on the environment. They gave up on child care. They gave up on student aid. They gave up on workplace training. They have given up on farmers.
Could I have the government's assurance that when it comes to the Canadian Wheat Board, it will not change the Canadian Wheat Board unless it has a producer plebiscite on a fair and honest question, where farmers decide, not politicians, not bureaucrats?
Jacques Gourde: Mr. Speaker, our election platform was very clear. We will accept what is fairly and freely decided for all Canadian farmers. 
TradeMrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, CPC): Mr. Speaker, in the annual state of trade document tabled in the House yesterday, the Minister of International Trade stated that trade and investment performance continued to be relatively prosperous.
Could the parliamentary secretary tell the House how Canada's trade is measuring up on the international stage?
Ms. Helena Guergis (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to say that both our exports and imports have been strong and continue to contribute to the improved well-being of Canadians. Overall, exports have risen by 5.2%. Our sound domestic economic policy, the excellence work of trade and investment counsellors here in Canada and abroad has made us a reliable import and export partner.
Many of the leaders with whom I am meeting are very pleased with the direction that the government is taking and are expressing a desire to invest in Canada.
Canada's trade is doing very well on the international stage, but we need to do better. Under the leadership of the Prime Minister, we will do better.
The EnvironmentDennis Bevington: Mr. Speaker, for over a year, Conservatives have claimed they have a plan to tackle climate change. Canadians and the NDP have been asking, where is the plan? For five months, nothing.
 Yesterday the NDP launched the first part of its five point plan to a cleaner environment called the “Green Agenda for Canada”. These are costed proposals that would reduce emissions and save working families money on their energy bills.
When will the government table its plan to help Canadians make their homes more efficient?
Mark Warawa: Mr. Speaker, it is a good question and, as we have said many times in the House, we are developing a plan that is going to be effective and realistic.
I do not expect any support on plan building with the Liberals. For 13 years, they did absolutely nothing. However, we ask everyone else in the House to help us develop a plan that will be effective.
Dennis Bevington: Mr. Speaker, I wish the government would not blame the Liberals for the lack of their plan. Actions speak louder than words.
Homeowners need relief from soaring energy costs now. Our plan would save Canadians money, create 190,000 green jobs and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 42 megatonnes. Our plan calls for housing retrofits, amendments to the national building code, mandatory ENERGY STAR compliance for household appliances and the reinstatement of the EnerGuide programs.
Could the government indicate exactly when Canadians will learn which of these proposals will be taken up by the government?
Christian Paradis: Mr. Speaker, let us be clear. All Canadians can agree that there has been an increase in greenhouse gas emissions due to the previous government's failure to take action.
We are a responsible government. We are reviewing programs precisely in order to keep our promises to Canadians and so as not to betray them, as they were betrayed for the past 13 years.
This is what it means to be a responsible government.

Routine Proceedings
Committees of the HouseGary Goodyear: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the 12th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the membership of committees of the House.
Mr. Speaker, if the House gives its consent, I move that the 12th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs be concurred in without debate.
The Deputy Speaker:  Is there unanimous consent?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed. 
Gary Goodyear: (Motion agreed to)
Extension of Sitting HoursRob Nicholson:  moved:
 That, pursuant to Standing Order 27(1), commencing on June 19, 2006 and concluding on June 22, 2006 the House shall continue to sit until midnight. 
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to say a few words on this, with the emphasis on a few words. It seems to me that we should not spend forever on any debate that would extend the hours of the House. We want to get to the business of the government.
It is part of a long standing tradition that in the last couple of weeks, Parliament is extended to get its business done. I believe it was 1982 that this became standardized as part of the rules for governing the House of Commons and it is generally done for the last two weeks. However, this is very specific. We are asking for the last week, beginning June 19, to extend sitting dates.
 I will be quite candid with the House that we would like to see progress made on the federal accountability act. Great progress has been made in committee and there has been a certain amount of cooperation. There are a lot of amendments that have been dealt with in that committee. It is reasonable and Canadians are expecting that we will deal with that.
I say to Canadians that the schedule of the House of Commons is not overly onerous for any members of Parliament. It is a privilege to serve here and when we get the opportunity, we know we have to come here to work.
At the same time there has been good progress made in this Parliament. Bill C-9, the conditional sentencing act, has been referred to the standing committee. That is a great step forward. I am looking forward to moving Bill C-10, the bill that established minimum sentences for violent crime in this country, to committee so that it can be studied. 
We recently had passage of the budget implementation bill. We have made good progress. We are expecting that the federal accountability act will be back in the House very shortly. That is among the reasons why we would like to see the House extend its time for sittings in that last week.
I think it is only reasonable. Whenever we have an election, as we did earlier this year, it cuts into House time, so the Parliament of Canada has not sat as long or as often in 2006 as we might otherwise expect in a year in which there was not an election. This is a reasonable request.
There are other bills that I know are important to members. I have had members from a number of political parties indicate to me they would like to see progress on the second reading debate on the foreign adoption bill and we are prepared to accommodate that. There is one bill I know is very important to members, which is fixed dates for elections. That particular legislation is very important. It is part of that democratic reform package on which I think Canadians are looking to us to proceed.
I am asking for the cooperation of the House in moving this forward. Let us work together and complete the agenda that Canadians are expecting of us.
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, I have a few comments to make on the motion that the government House leader has just introduced in the House.
First, I would indicate that I am a bit surprised at the government's perception that this type of motion, which as the hon. gentleman points out is not especially unusual, is actually necessary in the circumstances of this Parliament thus far.
While working and fighting very hard for the issues that really matter for ordinary Canadians, like: reductions in personal income taxes; high-quality, universally-accessible, affordable and developmental early learning and child care system; action on the funding of the Kelowna accords with and for aboriginal peoples; action on climate change and the environment; greater student aid, workplace training and innovation; help for farmers, fishers and foresters; and stronger support for the arts and cultural expression, I do not think it can be said that we have been obstructionist or dilatory in this House.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): I am sorry to interrupt the member. I just need some clarification for the purpose of managing what is happening right now.
Is the hon. member under questions and comments or under resuming debate?
[Interjection]
Ralph Goodale: Resuming debate, Mr. Speaker.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): I am advised by the Table that the hon. member could be asking questions at this moment.
[Interjection]
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, I am on debate.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau):  On debate, the hon. member for Wascana.
[Interjection]
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, let me repeat that point for the sake of clarity. I have pointed out that members of the opposition have been very vigorous in advancing the strong views that we hold with respect to things like tax reductions; child care; the Kelowna accords; climate change; greater aid for students pursuing post-secondary education; workplace training; innovation; help for farmers, fishers and foresters; and stronger support for the arts and culture. 
We have been vigorous in our pursuit of all of those items, but I do not think it can be said that we have in any way obstructed the business of the House or slowed it down from what would otherwise be the case. There is no evidence that the business of the House has been stalled.
Second, I would point out that the government has not presented a particularly heavy or even full agenda for the House to deal with thus far in this new Parliament. There have been 17 items of legislation that have been brought forward. More than half of that total are in fact recycled old items from the previous government in the last Parliament. Two or three of them are purely routine in nature and that leaves only a very small minority of items on the order paper that are truly new or potentially time consuming in what they would demand of the House.
Again, it is not abundantly clear that an extension of hours is necessary. The order paper is largely vacant in terms of new or controversial matters. 
It would be useful to know, in dealing with this motion that is now before the House, if the government requires the extension of hours, what will that extra time be used for? Beyond the one item or perhaps two items that the government House leader has referred, will the government devote some of its extra time to some new initiatives that would actually achieve some good and some progress? 
For example, will the government, in that two week period, produce the promised plan to generate a dramatically increased number of quality child care spaces for those Canadian moms and dads who truly need that kind of service? I would point out, as we have said in the House before, that three or four taxable dollars per week do not a system make.
The Conservatives have hinted that they may have some plan for something more at some time in terms of increasing spaces. I wonder if they would take the opportunity in the coming two weeks to produce at least the basics of that plan for more child care spaces.
On aboriginal people, the Conservatives have said that they support the spirit and intent of the Kelowna accords for aboriginal Canadians, but they just do not like the title and they just cannot find the money. They say that they are working on a plan of their own, one probably under a different name. Somehow that word “Kelowna” seems to stick in the throat.
I ask if they will be prepared to use some of the extra time that they are now asking for to table a specific action plan on Kelowna or better still, will they simply bring forward, in the next two weeks, Bill C-292, standing in the name of the right hon. member for LaSalle—Émard, so it can enjoy the confidence of the House. That would be a very good use of the extra time.
With respect to the environment, the government to date has focused primarily on cancelling programs, eliminating budgets, and embarrassing Canadians internationally in its reneging of the Kyoto protocol. Still, it talks, amidst a lot of slogans for the most part, about some vague, unspecified made in Canada plan with respect to climate change. 
Canadians have languished in Conservative darkness for too long now and I wonder, in the extra time in the next two weeks, will we see that made in Canada plan with respect to climate change and the honouring of Kyoto?
My fourth and final suggestion has to do with assistance to Canadian students and those who are seeking further training in the workplace. When the government came to office, it inherited from its predecessors $2.7 billion in firm, clear commitments to enhance the level of student aid in this country, to reduce the financial barriers, so more Canadian students could have access to post-secondary education.
The government also inherited $3.5 billion that was dedicated to enhanced workplace training through labour market partnership agreements. 
All of this was aimed at enhancing productivity, growth and prosperity for all Canadians.
These issues with respect to student aid, workplace training and innovation are entirely lacking from the government's agenda now. Again I would suggest that in the next two weeks it might be very useful to devote some of this extra time to an important matter such as that.
The official opposition does not intend to delay this motion or to stand in its way, but we would ask the government to pay some attention to the issues I have just referred to.
 I would also ask for the government House leader's assurance that in the way the extra hours are applied he does not intend to in any way interfere with or pre-empt the normal flow of private members' business that would be scheduled over that two week period. 
Similarly, I ask that the commitment that has been made to a further allotted day which would stand in the name of the Liberal Party and is tentatively scheduled for June 20 would not be interfered with in the flow of activity that the government House leader has in mind.
I wonder if the government House leader would take the opportunity at some point subsequent in this debate, before we deal with the motion, to offer the House his assurance with respect to those two matters.
[Interjection]
Rob Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I think we can give the hon. member those assurances. It certainly would be our intention to continue with private members' hour and, as agreed upon, there will be an allotted day to be given to the Liberal Party in the second week.
Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, I am not averse to this idea. I think the NDP has made it very clear that we are willing to roll up our sleeves and do whatever it takes to work for something that we are committed to. I want to be seen to be on the side of the people who are willing to work hard to get an important job done rather than run away and get to the barbecue circuit. I am perfectly happy to be associated with those who are willing to work.
I wonder, though, in the ordinary calendar of things and in the ordinary agenda scheduling, why the government feels it is necessary to go to these extraordinary lengths of working to midnight. What barriers or obstacles seem to be in the way of us simply conducting ourselves in the normal calendar?
[Interjection]
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, I take it in the flow of--
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): The hon. member for Winnipeg Centre is rising on a point of order.
[Interjection]
Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, in the interests of fairness, I thought I was asking a question of the House leader of the Conservative Party. I am not quite as interested in the opinions of the member from Regina, but I have a feeling that the member from Regina has the answer to the question I put to the House leader for the Conservative Party. What on earth is the barrier and the obstacle to progress on this bill? Why does the government feel it is necessary to take these extraordinary measures? Could it be that the obstacle and the barrier is sitting across from him?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): The hon. member for Wascana may reply to the reworded question.
[Interjection]
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, I would simply point out that members of the Liberal Party have been very diligent in attending the legislative committee on Bill C-2, in dealing with all of the work before that committee in a very serious manner, in asking questions that are appropriate to the subject matter, and in advancing a number of critical amendments to try to improve that legislation.
I am told that in the course of the committee's work a series of questions has been asked about items that appear in the first number of clauses in the bill and that could have serious implications for issues that might arise when one proceeds clause by clause to the later clauses of the bill. It is important to have in mind all of those consequences to make sure that we get a piece of coherent legislation that is not internally conflicting or potentially unconstitutional.
I can assure the House that the work being done by Liberal members with respect to Bill C-2 is very conscientious work. It is focused on the issues. It is not dilatory. To answer the hon. gentleman's question, if there is a fault to be laid, it is not with the official opposition.
David Christopherson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the member for Wascana, who talked about the willingness of the official opposition to stay and work to get important things done, but I have to say that I would like to hear a little more reassurance. I was at the defence committee yesterday and the Liberals were not interested in working that day, because they were not in their seats when the government moved to shut down hearing from CARE Canada, the Polaris Institute and the Canadian Council for International Co-operation.
So while I appreciate hearing from the official opposition that those members want to work hard, my experience yesterday at the defence committee was exactly the opposite. I would like to hear a little more emphatically that the official opposition in this place is indeed actually interested in working.
[Interjection]
Ralph Goodale: Oh, Mr. Speaker, I am delighted he asked that question.
 The fact of the matter is that members of this House are assigned to various committees and they work very hard on those committees.
 I would be interested to know, in dealing with the NDP, how come those members said last November that they were in favour of $5.1 billion for aboriginal Canadians in the Kelowna accord and then conducted themselves in such a way as to trigger an election, which has resulted in the evisceration of the Kelowna accord? 
How come the NDP members said they were for student aid and for workplace training and in fact have conducted themselves in such a way that they have caused the cancellation of $2.7 billion in student aid and $3.5 billion for workplace training?
Those members say they are for the environment, but because of their conduct last fall in triggering an election, they cost environmental programs $2 billion, cancelled by the government, and they did nothing to defend those programs. 
That is the record of the NDP. I would be happy to stack up the record of any Liberal in working for the best interests of Canadians against any New Democrat any time.
Monique Guay: Mr. Speaker, I will take a few minutes of my time to explain our party's position.
We support the government's motion, because we feel that the debates must take place. We see that there are a number of bills before the House, and we also believe in members' democratic right to voice their opinions. We therefore need time to do that. Extended hours will enable many members to speak on bills that are very important to the House of Commons, such as Bill C-2, which we are currently looking at in committee.
We must also consider that the House began sitting much later than usual. It is only natural, then, that we should need a little more time to do the work of the House and finish what we started.
As I mentioned earlier, the Bloc Québécois supports this motion. I hope that all the parties will understand. Bill C-2 still requires an enormous amount of work in committee. We will not likely complete that work before the end of next week. The bill will then return to this House for further debate.
We are in favour of the government motion.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): I recognize the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre on questions and comments.
Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to expand a little on the rationale behind why we may have to sit until midnight and I would like to know if my colleague shares my views.
 Bill C-2 being about accountability, transparency and, I suppose, making manifest some ethical standards which in and of themselves may not be legislative issues, the principles can be realized within legislation. I know that my colleague shares my view that this is a noble pursuit and an admirable thing to be doing, but will she agree with me that the enemies of open government and accountability are in fact legion?
 They are sprinkled throughout the senior bureaucracy. They are sprinkled throughout the permanent government in the Ottawa system. They transcend opposition from political parties. The opposition is ingrained in that very few senior bureaucrats, really, are big fans of open government and transparency. In fact, I challenge members to find one who really believes.
I remember watching the TV show Yes, Minister. It is a British comedy. Sir Humphrey says to the prime minister, “Mr. Prime Minister, you can have good government and you can have open government, but, sir, you cannot have both”. This is the worrisome sentiment that I sense percolating throughout much of Ottawa. 
What worries me, and what I would like my colleague's views on, is that I do not think all the political parties understand how fragile an initiative like this really is, how easily it can be knocked off the rails, and how certain actions from certain parties, no matter how well intentioned, can in fact jeopardize and undermine the success of such an ambitious project.
I hear my colleague saying that naturally we are all willing to roll up our sleeves and work hard because we believe in the principles of accountability and transparency. I am sure my colleague wants to be able to tell the people of Quebec that the federal government is now in fact honest. I know my colleague believes that it is important to assure Quebeckers that federalism is in fact the face of honesty, transparency and accountability, not the face of corruption, maladministration and the misuse of funds. This particular bill gives her the opportunity to go home and be a champion of the federal state of Canada as an honest state with integrity.
She made her speech today about extra hours and how we are all willing to make sure this is the best bill it can possibly be, but perhaps the secondary benefit to Bill C-2, secondary to the restoration of the confidence of the main body politic of Canada, is the unity of Canada. The bill should have been subtitled “the unity bill”, because the biggest threat to Canadian unity is the legacy of corruption that the Liberal Party left us. I was losing confidence in federalism under the Liberal Party, so I can imagine how the people in Quebec felt, being the victims of the sponsorship scandal. 
Will she agree with me that if we can convince Quebeckers that the new federal government will in fact be honest and will be stipulated to a set of ethical standards, standards we can be proud of instead of ashamed of, we will all be better off and the nation-state of Canada will move into the next century confident that we are on the right track?
[Interjection]
Monique Guay: Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague from the NDP gave such a speech that I would have almost believed he had switched to the Conservative Party. I am very surprised that he paid such a special tribute to the party in power.
Nevertheless, since we have such a motion before us, it is important to examine it very carefully. The hon. member knows this, since he and I sit on the same committee, which is examining Bill C-2. We must come up with a good bill that will be effective and that contains all of the necessary elements to properly administer Parliament. By adopting this bill, we will be able to ensure clarity, while preventing any new mischief or sponsorship scandals. That is the intent of this bill. 
The Elections Act must also be very clear, but it needs work. We must review over 200 amendments. This will therefore be a long process and our work must be meaningful. The committee has extended its sitting hours.
Furthermore, I know that here in the House of Commons, we also have considerable work to do on various bills. For four days, June 19 to 22, we may have to extend our hours of work, as the government has requested. 
That is entirely reasonable, especially since we arrived in Ottawa later than usual. In fact, since Parliament began much later, it is only logical that our sitting hours may be extended.
As for Canadian unity, I assure you that we in the Bloc Québécois are very united and stand firmly behind Quebec. 
Mr. Pierre Poilievre (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is abundantly clear that the sovereignists need corrupt Liberals to justify achieving sovereignty. Such is the extremely useful relationship they have with corrupt Liberals who, in turn, use the separatists as an excuse for their corruption, as we have seen in connection with the sponsorship scandal.
The hon. member may try to deny this relationship between the Bloc and the Liberals. She may not want to admit that the sovereignists need the corrupt Liberals to justify separation. Otherwise, is she prepared to say loud and clear that she supports our extending sitting hours in order to pass the accountability bill, which will thoroughly clean up politics in this country, and that she will work to have this bill passed by the Senate before the summer recess?
[Interjection]
Monique Guay: How wonderful it is to be young, Mr. Speaker. It is obvious from listening to the member that he completely missed the point. He did not even listen to what I said. I wish he had listened, though.
What I said was that we do support the possibility of extended hours. His deputy House leader understood me clearly. Now the Bloc is being accused of not wanting that.
Let me offer an elementary lesson to the hon. member: before rising and putting a question to another member in the House, one must first listen to what the other member has to say, in order to then ask a sensible question.
Hon. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I was very pleased to hear my colleague speak, the hon. member for Rivière-du-Nord and deputy leader of the Bloc. I was sorry to hear what the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board just said. It is perfectly absurd in many ways. I would like know what my colleague has to say about this.
It seems to me that yesterday, during the clause by clause deliberations in the legislative committee dealing with Bill C-2, a committee that my colleague and I are members of, if it had not been for the excellent work done by the four Liberal members and the two Bloc members, the government would have been in trouble three different times. Three times the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board tried to push, pull and force the rhythm of the work instead of sitting down and thinking things through. If we had used his work method, we probably would have quickly passed amendments and provisions that would have impacted on other provisions or clauses of the bill down the road. 
It was government experts, following questions that I asked and you and your critic asked—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): The hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine should address her comments to the Chair. Furthermore, the time for this period of questions has expired. However, I will give the hon. member for Rivière-du-Nord a moment to respond.
[Interjection]
Monique Guay: Mr. Speaker, I will respond quickly. I had said that I would not take too much time.
Serious work has to be done in committee. It is true that we tend to get hurried along. Some amendments have significant consequences to certain sections of the legislation. We absolutely must take this work seriously.
I totally agree with my colleague. We will continue to work in a serious fashion. We will take the time we need to do so.
Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the NDP caucus, I am pleased to join the debate on the motion by the government House leader to extend the hours of Parliament's sitting so, within the current calendar, we have enough working time to do justice to Bill C-2, the federal accountability act.
At the outset, the NDP is pleased to roll up its sleeves and be here as long as it takes to ensure the bill gets dealt with as a top priority because Canadians are watching. 
The bar has been set pretty high. The government made it its centrepiece when it was first elected. It was a campaign promise first and then part of the legislative package. It was the first bill introduced in Parliament, a bill that would clean up government and clean up accountability and transparency. It was done in the hopes that it would have an effect on the confidence of Canadians in their institutions, not just the federal government itself, but the institutions created such as crown corporations, agencies, et cetera.
Let us face it, what we are left with is a pretty tarnished package. I fear we have done such great damage to the confidence Canadians have in their government that they are less likely to vote. That lack of confidence in their institutions undermines the whole democratic process. People are jaded and circumspect. Because of that, they may not exercise their democratic right to vote and send people to Ottawa. This does lasting harm that takes generations to heal.
When we started in this 39th Parliament, quite rightly the number one priority was a comprehensive act, and some say almost too big a project, to try to restore the faith that Canadians should have in their system.
We are pleased to work extra hours to get this project through the House before we break for the summer recess. We are afraid, if this process is delayed and put over into the fall, or God help us put over into the spring, that it will lose momentum. It will lose the drive, the attention and the focus of not only members, but of the media and the general public. If we fail, if we let the public down on this initiative, I do not think we will ever get their confidence back. If we fail now, we will have done irreparable harm to the confidence that Canadians should have in their government. 
There is a saying that villainy wears many masks and none so dangerous as the mask of virtue. What we have seen are the enemies of accountability, those who would seek to preserve the status quo. They lined up against this bill. We have to come together. We have to muster our resources to do combat with those enemies of transparency and accountability, those champions of the status quo who nearly undermined the national unity of Canada. 
That is our project. We cannot overstate the importance of trying to restore integrity to federal politics. The survival of the country itself may depend on it. I am not saying that to overstate things or to be romantic. I am not kidding. The bill could be the death rattle of the separatist movement in Canada. Those who were so disgusted with Canada that they sought to leave it would now be confident that federalism not only worked as an administrative institution, but worked as an honest institution with integrity. That is how important this is. Everything else pales in comparison.
One of the conditions we have put forward, in our conditional support of this motion, is that we do not want a bunch of other lesser things to be snuck in under the carpet, in the same rubric with these extended hours.
Because I do not want there to be any doubt whatsoever, I want to make it abundantly clear that our party is willing to do whatever it takes to pass this bill, not only as it stands but to put our amendments and ideas forward so we can participate in making it the best bill it can possibly be. Again, not to overstate things, this might be the last chance we get.
Canadians are abandoning the federal electoral process in droves. It grieves me that in the last federal election, the voter turnout was terribly low. Sixty per cent of registered voters is in the acceptable range for a western democratic country, but it is only 50% of all those eligible to vote. That is not very good and it does not bode very well.
Therefore, there are secondary objectives to the bill, one of which is the very integrity and the very health and well-being of the democratic process for which our parents fought and died to create.
I rise today as a fiercely proud Canadian nationalist who sees more to the bill than just the administrative details of dotting the t's and crossing the i's and ensuring that nobody has their hand in the cookie jar. That stuff is really incidental compared to the big picture. We cannot lose sight of that picture, analyzing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
 This is what I mean when I say villainy wears many masks. The enemies of the bill would have us study it until next spring, under the disguise, under the fraud, that it is so important that we need to study it more and more, or that we need to have 10,000 witnesses, or that we have to debate every motion and amendment day after day.
We all know what needs to be done. God help us if we cannot tell the difference between right and wrong. That should be what guides us in this activity. Navel gazing day after day and week after week will not work.
 I will share with members the fact that the leader of one of the opposition parties told our leader that we should be hearing witnesses on Bill C-2 until next spring. Can anyone believe that? That would give members some idea of what we are up against. It would be death by committee. We would be analyzing, analyzing, analyzing.
We all know what needs to be done. However, some opposition parties cannot function without the status quo they have built up of unethical practices, of shadowy behind the scenes. They cannot operate in the light of day. Sunlight is a powerful disinfectant. When we turn the light on something, it has a miraculous healing effect on it. 
 I am fond of saying that freedom of information is the oxygen that democracy breathes. The public's right to know is perhaps the most important tenet of our democratic system.
The bill is about that. Members who use the excuse that they will not support the bill because it does not have one of their pet projects involved and it does not have everything, puts in jeopardy the many good things that it does have.
Our advice to any of those who would oppose rolling up our sleeves and getting busy on this bill is, “Give your head a shake”. This is about more than just administrative process, et cetera. This is about the health and well-being of a system that we believe is the best system in the world, the Canadian democratic system, the Parliament that we enjoy and the freedom.
I do not think it is a stretch to connect Canadian nationalism, pride of Canada and Canadian unity to Bill C-2. I think it is exactly appropriate. They are one and the same, part and parcel. That is why I am proud to be associated with it and to do all we can.
The bill opens a window of opportunity that we did not anticipate on April 11 when it was introduced. There are amendments that we think would be important.
 The three pillars of strength in the bill are access to information, whistleblowing protection and a public appointments commission. They form the substance of the legs on a three-legged stool. I suggest we add a fourth pillar to the bill, which would be election financing and reform. This is so timely and so appropriate, and we should do it today. A recent event made this abundantly apparent how necessary it is. We have Liberal leadership candidates shaking down school kids for their lunch money under the guise of fundraising. It is entirely inappropriate. Fortunately, we have within our means the ability to change that and put a stop to this atrocity.
[Intervention]
An hon. member:  It is a whole new word for “leave no child behind”.
Pat Martin:  Mr. Speaker, that is right. I thought it was clever that when someone criticized the $1,200 child care money the Conservatives said that at least they were not trying to shake down $5,400 from kids, that they were giving money to kids.
The other aspect to election financing reform that we have an opportunity to do something about is an amendment that we put forward dealing with these huge Liberal leadership loans. These leadership loans are tantamount to a corporate donation. If one does not repay these loans after 18 months they are treated as a donation. If one is only allowed to donate $5,400 a year but one loans somebody $100,000 and, wink, wink, nudge, nudge, one does not repay it, it is then treated as a donation. That is corporate sponsorship. It is deliberately circumventing the donation limits of the Canada Election Act and it is wrong. It means that some people are getting disproportionate influence through their donations than others. We want that curbed.
We have one classic example of a member, who actually crossed the floor from the Conservatives to the Liberals, having a loan that after 18 months would have rolled into being considered a donation. She would then have found herself in violation of the law and would simply have taken out another loan to pay off the first loan and rolled it over. I do not want to use the word useless but that is how flawed our election financing laws are. They are easy to circumvent. People are taking steps to circumvent them.
On these corporate leadership loans, one was given to the member for Kings--Hants from the head of a fishing company who in fact was the leading advocate and champion for the income trusts situation. We do not have to be a rocket scientist to connect those kinds of situations.
We have a unique opportunity to deal with the stated priorities of Bill C-2, which includes the access to information reform, a new public appointments commission and to do away with the patronage. I will stop for a second and restate how passionately I feel about this. The governor in council appointments used to be done from a single desk in the PMO. The main qualification was the colour of the membership card that one had in one's pocket. Everybody knows that. Let us not kid ourselves.
The reason we do not need to study some of these things to death is that they are so blatantly obvious. It was just the way Ottawa ran for years and years. This public appointments commission would be a merit based process, an objective transparent process where these 3,500 GIC appointments would be filled based on one's merit or skill and not on one's membership card and the ruling party of the day. That is critically important, as is cleaning up the whistleblowing and lobbyist registration.
It is ambitious. When it was first introduced some said that it is too ambitious. I myself commented that it looked as if it was designed to fail because it was so huge and such an ambitious undertaking. Maybe that is something a newly elected government will do. Once it is two, three or four years into being the government it knows the complexity of these things to a greater degree. It is an ambitious thing but it is a good first project.
Now we are seeing that it is achievable. Yes, it is challenging and, yes, we are burning up a lot of hours in committee. Those who would accuse us of fast-tracking it in committee are not counting the number of hours that we are in session. Yes, it is a small number of days but when we are meeting six, eight and nine hours a day, we are compressing six months worth of committee time into a few weeks. 
Normally committees sit two hours a day twice a week, which is four hours week. We are sitting 24 hours a week, which is a six week sitting in one. I will challenge anyone who stands up and says that we have fast-tracked this to the point where we have jeopardized the integrity of the bill because it is simply not true. I would accuse them of having some other motivation in making that accusation.
One of the reasons we need to deal with this before the end of this particular session of Parliament is that we do not need to give the enemies of transparency and accountability time to regroup, time to sabotage and time to undermine our activities because villainy wears many masks and none so dangerous as the mask of virtue. 
I do not trust some of those people. I am talking about people not just in other parties who may have ulterior motives. There are people who would rather see the federal government maintain the status quo of corruption, lack of transparency, et cetera, for their own narrow partisan purposes at everyone's expense and, I would argue, at the expense of the nation state itself, not to overstate things.
There are others within the permanent government, within the senior bureaucracy, who are no great friends of transparency and open government. In fact, it is contrary to everything for which they stand. A certain culture evolves. It was the culture of secrecy that allowed corruption to flourish in the Liberal years, was it not? The Liberals could not have operated in the light of day. If sunlight is a powerful disinfectant it would have exposed the rot that was taking place year after year within the sponsorship scandal. 
The sponsorship scandal was not limited to Quebec. Winnipeg, Manitoba was cheated by the sponsorship scandal as well. Chuck Guité delivered $2.3 million to the Pan Am Games in 1999. Do members know how much we received? We received $600,000 while $1.7 million was hived off as production costs by a Liberal advertising firm. No one ever found out what those production costs were but I say that was the Liberal Party of Canada's take of that $2.3 million. I accuse them of that. I will say it inside the House and I will say it outside the House. The vice-president of sponsorship for the Pan Am Games, who is now a sitting Liberal Senator, worked directly with Chuck Guité to rob our sponsorship of the Pan Am Games of $1.7 million. I defy them to show me where that money went.
It was not just Quebeckers who were outraged by this and who should celebrate putting a stop to it. Winnipeg, Manitoba fell victim to Chuck Guité and Compass Communications, the Liberal Party of Nova Scotia, the president of the company, the fourth largest beneficiary of sponsorship contracts. It is not as though we do not have Liberal advertising companies in Winnipeg. We have plenty that are plugged right into the Liberal Party, but this contract had to go to this out of town contractor because it would play ball with graft, fraud and corruption.
I am speaking on behalf of Winnipeggers when I stand in the House, and it is an honour to do so. On their behalf I send the very clear message that I am willing to roll up my sleeves and do what I can to ensure this bill is a success and that it does not fall victim to the enemies of transparency and accountability. For those who would seek to carry on with the status quo, they are jeopardizing the very integrity of the nation state of Canada. Do they realize how much harm they did and how critically important it is to now show some contrition? Jimmy Swaggart even showed some contrition when he prostrated himself before his followers and said that he had sinned, that he was wrong. I want to see that from the Liberals, the televangelists' style. They know how to apologize. I want to see a real apology from the Liberal Party of Canada for jeopardizing the nation state of Canada.
Tom Lukiwski: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre for not only his comments today, but for his good work on the accountability act legislative committee. I also thank the hon. member for agreeing to support the motion, which is actually why we are speaking today. Rather than on accountability, the motion is to extend sitting hours for the week of June 19. I also thank all opposition members who have spoken today in support of the motion. 
The reason we introduced the motion today is that it is the last day to introduce the motion according to Standing Order 27(1). If we had not introduced the motion today we would not have been allowed to sit extended hours the week of June 19.
[Interjection]
Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, my colleague also sits on the special legislative committee on the federal accountability bill and I have noticed his interest. I have even noticed some sympathetic treatment toward some of the issues that we have raised that we would like to see as amendments to the bill. The NDP has put forward some 20 amendments, most of them not too onerous, most of them minor in nature. I do appreciate the reception most of them have received from not just government members on the committee, but from other members as well.
The public appointments commission is one issue that is particularly interesting to us and one we are committed to, and we would appreciate the government's support on that when the time comes up.
As my colleague has said, this is the last day that a motion can be moved to extend the hours. I would put it to the House that we are also running out of time to introduce meaningful amendments to the Canada Elections Act so that we can stop what I see as the wide scale, wholesale abuse of the Canada Elections Act in the context of the Liberal leadership race as we are seeing it today. 
We began by exposing through the media the fact that some people think it is appropriate to launder money through their children's bank accounts in order to exceed the donation limits of the Canada Elections Act. I do not care how this is portrayed or how it is painted and I do not care if somebody gets sued for it, but that is fraud. That is a deliberate attempt to circumvent the donation rules of the act. That was exposed by the hard work of journalists who drew attention to it and by the hard work of members of this House of Commons. 
I think everyone is now aware that we do not want undue corporate influence in our elections. We do not want union money influencing or having a disproportionate influence in elections. It should only be a voter, or at least a landed immigrant or a permanent resident of Canada who should be participating in the election process, and even then, with pretty strict guidelines and pretty strict limits.
My colleague, the parliamentary secretary, said that today was the deadline for extending the hours. We should have unanimous consent to do just that so we can introduce these important amendments before it is too late, before we lose the confidence of Canadians and before we lose this window of opportunity to restore integrity to the democratic system here in Canada.
Marlene Jennings: Mr. Speaker, I do understand that today is the last day the government can table a motion to extend the hours. I also take note that one of the reasons being given by some members in the House who have spoken is that it is absolutely necessary to ensure Bill C-2 is put through.
I listened to my hon. NDP colleague, the member for Winnipeg Centre. I sit on the legislative committee that is reviewing Bill C-2. I have to say that I have found some of his statements quite astounding in terms of the hidden enemy to ensure that there is no real accountability and transparency. I have been sitting on that committee since its inception and I do not believe there is any conspiracy on the part of any of the members on the committee to impede the adoption and implementation of Bill C-2.
I think a great desire has been clearly exhibited by members of that committee, particularly Liberal and Bloc members and the NDP member himself, the member for Winnipeg Centre, to see that the objectives of the bill are actually achieved and that there are no unintended consequences. I have tabled a whole series of amendments that touch on the constitutional autonomy of the House and its members. The member for Winnipeg Centre tabled identical amendments. 
That is one little piece of evidence that there is no hidden agenda on the part of members of the legislative committee. The agenda of each and every member, and I take them all in good faith, is to see that the government bill does in fact achieve what the government says it wants it to achieve, and I believe what all parties want it to achieve, to ensure that there is real accountability and transparency.
I would also like the member to comment on the issue that the committee has in fact been sitting extended hours. He himself made the point that in the space of one week the committee was doing the equivalent of four or six weeks' work of a normal committee. The committee also adopted a motion that it would sit throughout the summer were that required, but I do not believe it will be.
 I would like the member for Winnipeg Centre, in the spirit of well balanced, well founded facts, to at least say that this conspiracy he sees is not within the committee members. I do not think the facts would back him up on that if he is basing his statements on committee members. I believe that the government members would also state that there is an honest desire on the part of all of the members to see that Bill C-2 is strong and achieves the objectives. In fact at the pace we are going, the bill will be reported back to the House prior to the last week of the sitting of the House.
[Interjection]
Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, I work closely with my colleague on the committee, but I would point out that if we played Bill C-2 backwards on a turntable, a hidden message would come through. It would say to beware the enemies of accountability because they are lurking around every corner and they are deliberately trying to undermine the bill. I am not making this up. There are serious enemies to the bill. 
I tracked what happened the last time we tried to introduce transparency when the Liberals were in power. I have done the research and I have found the exact moment when the Liberals bailed out on the access to information reform. Believe me, the enemies of accountability and transparency on that side are powerful, well connected and come right from the top. 
We were well along the way to having access to information reform in our hands. We were that close. We had studied it for eight or nine years. I think that should be long enough to even satisfy my colleague who really wants to micro-analyze every t and every i, to her credit. The study was done. We all knew what needed to be done and the minister of justice committed to us, to our committee, to me personally, that he would introduce meaningful ATI reform. It was sabotaged. It was undermined by the leadership of that party. Even though the minister of justice himself, I believe, shared my view that freedom of information is the oxygen democracy breathes, certainly the people who surround him in the back rooms of the Liberal Party do not agree. There are many enemies to accountability.
Hon. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to speak today, but after hearing two speeches, particularly from members on this side of the House, I feel that certain things need to be clarified and I would like to set the record straight. 
I will not take all of the time allotted, but I would like to make a few comments. With respect to the speech given by the hon. member for Nepean—Carleton and Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board, I felt he was true to himself and consistent with his usual style, namely, that of petty politics. 
I find it very disappointing that someone who speaks on the government's behalf cannot resist making constant allegations and insinuations. This is tantamount to an abuse of privilege. In this House, we all have the privilege to speak freely. Our comments are protected precisely so that we may enjoy this freedom of speech. 
However, excessive use of this privilege, which is typical of the hon. member for Nepean—Carleton, as he splatters everyone and accuses all Liberals of corruption, which he does better than anyone and with no subtlety, this really is petty politics. I have already asked him to stop lowering the level of debate in this House. This has proven useless and he continues to do so. He continues to show off like a petty politician and I find his behaviour most distressing. 
With regard to the often very creative flights of fancy by the member for Winnipeg Centre, there is one that must be addressed. I believe that in a question to the member for Rivière-du-Nord, he basically stated that all public servants cannot be trusted and have only one objective—that is to hide and camouflage all information and to prevent access to it. The member for Winnipeg Centre is grossly exaggerating in his stereotyping of Canada's public service. 
In this country, we have an exemplary public service that, over the years, has helped the executive and Parliament to build a country that is the envy of others, with freedom of expression and action, peace and a kind of social justice that are also the envy of the world. To say that the public servants of this country, whether at a senior or any other level, are part of some conspiracy and plotting to hide information and cover things up is a shameless exaggeration. It was my duty to rise and to set the record straight.
From top to bottom and vice versa, we have an exemplary public service that carries out its work in accordance with the laws of the country. It is unacceptable to insult people in this way. 
With regard to the motion, I will support it anyway because it is customary that we do so. Just now, it was said that this was the last day. It may be the last, but I believe that it is also the first. The rules state that it is today, 10 days beforehand, that the government must table its motion. The government has done this as required. We have two hours to debate and then we will decide. I am under the impression that we will decide before the deadline. However, we all have the right to speak about it and I am exercising that right.
 The focus seems to be on the consideration of Bill C-2. It is also important to stress that this was the first bill of importance introduced by this government. 
Personally, I do not sit on the committee that is working on it. I am sitting on a different committee. I must make sure that those involved have enough time to do their job properly. 
For example, with respect to access to information, I have seen a special report that the information commissioner tabled for all members of this House. It does not exactly praise Bill C-2. I do not know if the committee considered or plans to consider the amendments, or what the government's position is. I am going to rely on the teamwork of the members representing all parties on committee to do that and to report. Once the committee has completed its work and reported, we will have an opportunity to debate in the House. I will decide then how I should be voting. 
There are, however, other problems with that bill.
This is quite an ambitious bill, which came about pretty quickly.
I have concerns regarding elections, about the Elections Act. For example, the bill would limit personal political contributions to $1,000, while allowing a third party to continue spending more than that amount in each riding. There should not be any contradictions in this bill.
The committee that is asked to work on it has to have enough time to do a good job. In his question to the hon. member for Rivière-du-Nord, the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board asked that she make sure, or give him the assurance, that the bill will be passed, even in the other place, before the summer recess. That goes to show that he does not understand the bicameral nature of this Parliament.
I wanted to make these few comments to correct to some extent those made by the members for Nepean—Carleton and Winnipeg Centre.
Dennis Bevington: Mr. Speaker, it is very important that we move ahead with the debate on Bill C-2, somewhat for selfish reasons. I work on my party's energy and environment file. I am concerned. The Conservatives plan to introduce work on a climate change plan in the fall. I do not want Bill C-2 to be hanging over our heads in the fall. I want it to be out of the way. I want us to move on. I do not want to have to listen to excuses from the government why it is not moving ahead on greenhouse gas emissions. 
If I had my way, we could sit all summer if it meant getting a greenhouse gas reduction plan from the Conservative government which could serve Canadians and reduce the cost of energy for Canadians in their homes next winter. That would suit me better than going on the barbecue circuit throughout the country.
The issue of accountability has dogged this country for the last two years. I would like to know what the loss of productivity in the government has been through the problems that have come out, through the corruption that showed up in the Liberal Party over the last number of years.
We need to move on. The accountability act needs to be put in place. Parliament needs to resume its work on the more important issues that face Canadians rather than the issues faced inside the House. We need to get over those. We are elected to provide leadership. Leadership implies moral leadership as well.
I am proud that the NDP stood up in November last year and caused the demise of the Liberal government. I was proud of that. We made a move that needed to be done. I do not agree with all the things the current government is doing right now, but we needed to make that move. We needed to clean up the House of Commons. We needed to move on. Canadians needed to know that we were moving on. We have a chance to do that now before we break for the summer. Let us do it. Let us make the effort. Let us get it done. 
I fully support the motion. I would urge the member to consider the importance of other legislation that he may want to see move forward in the fall session.
[Interjection]
Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Speaker, I have to say that I did not exactly grasp the question in the remarks by the member for Western Arctic.
I said at the beginning of my speech that I intended to support the motion before us. That is essentially what I will do.
As for that pitiful attempt to justify the New Democrats' actions last fall, one consequence of those actions is that many programs that addressed the issue of greenhouse gas emissions have disappeared. The Canadian people will judge in the end.
I can tell him, for my part, that whether I am in government or in opposition, I will continue to work as I have always done and do my best to improve the bills on which I am asked to pass judgment and to monitor the government, because it must be held accountable.
Mr. Paul Dewar (Ottawa Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I want to raise a couple of points. As a member who has sat on the committee looking at Bill C-2, I think it is important to underline a couple of the reasons why I would like to support the motion and also why all members should support it.
It really comes down to the fact that we in the NDP have made a commitment to make sure that the intention and the substance of Bill C-2 are going to see the light of day, quite frankly. My colleague for Winnipeg Centre put it straightforwardly. This is the kind of thing that Canadians have asked for. This is the kind of thing that Canadians demand.
We in the NDP believe there is more that can be done. We are going forward in committee with amendments to make sure that is done. As for anything that is not done with the bill, we will make sure that we do more than oppose; we will make sure to propose solutions to those deficiencies. In fact, there are many things we have already pointed out in the area of being responsible and accountable to the public at large. We see those in areas of democratic reform.
I gladly and wholeheartedly support the motion. I encourage all my colleagues to do so. It is the right thing to do. It is what Canadians expect from us.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau):  Is the House ready for the question? 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Question. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau):  The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): (Motion agreed to)
PetitionsMyron Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table a petition on behalf of 75 residents of the great town of Cochrane in my riding of Wild Rose. The petitioners are calling for support for “welcome a stranger in need”, to significantly increase the number of refugees in Canada, to substantially lift the barriers that prevent refugees from reaching Canada, to provide international leadership to address the causes that force people from their homes and prevent them from returning, to reform Canada's refugee and immigration program to ensure full access to due process and fundamental justice, to speed up the immigration process for reuniting refugees and their families, and to take further measures for newcomers integrating into our society.
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege today to present a petition signed by a number of people from the province of Saskatchewan. The petitioners draw attention to a recent television mini-series called Prairie Giant, which was referred to earlier today in the House. The petitioners note their concern about the program, which in their opinion, and I share that opinion, seriously compromised the distinguished reputation of a very well-known Canadian, the Right Honourable James G. Gardiner.
The petitioners call upon the CBC to take a number of steps to correct the record with respect to Mr. Gardiner. The petitioners urge the House to be diligent in ensuring that the CBC does take the appropriate action, not treading upon artistic freedom, but making it abundantly clear that this was a work of fiction and not a documentary.
Mr. Alex Atamanenko (British Columbia Southern Interior, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions. The first is from the residents of Osoyoos and Nelson in my riding of British Columbia Southern Interior. They have signed a petition in regard to child care, requesting that Parliament work together in this minority Parliament to provide the provinces and territories with annual funds of at least $1.2 billion to build a high quality, accessible, affordable, community based child care system and to ensure fair and effective income support for Canadian families.
Alex Atamanenko: Mr. Speaker, the second petition deals with autism. This petition was signed by residents of the West Kootenay area of my riding, from Trail, Castlegar, Rossland, Montrose, Robson, Fruitville, Warfield and South Slocan.
The petitioners ask Parliament to amend the Canada Health Act and corresponding regulations to include intensive behavioural intervention and applied behaviour analysis therapy for children with autism as a medically necessary treatment and require that all provinces provide or fund this essential treatment for autism, and also to contribute to the creation of academic chairs at universities in each province dealing with this in this regard.
Alex Atamanenko: Mr. Speaker, my third petition is from residents of British Columbia Southern Interior, other areas of B.C., and Saskatchewan. These petitioners are calling upon the Government of Canada to remove Canadian soldiers from Afghanistan immediately. They feel that it should not be the policy of our Department of National Defence to support the government of Afghanistan, which is dominated by warlords, opium producers and former Taliban commanders, and they feel that we should not be there.
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, I rise to present two petitions. The first petition calls upon the Parliament of Canada to urge the adoption of recommendation 2.5 in the report of the technical advisory committee on tax measures for persons with disabilities. They would like to see that tax credit applied with greater fairness to people who have certain kinds of disabilities, including those with juvenile diabetes.
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, secondly, I rise to speak up in favour of the human rights of Egyptian Christians, who are the minority in that country and who are systematically discriminated against and face constant intimidation by terrorist elements in that country. It is time that Canada took a strong stand against terrorism and thuggery all over the world, including in Egypt.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): I would like to remind hon. members that it is okay to read the preamble to petitions but not to make speeches about them.
I recognize the hon. member for Beauséjour.
Dominic LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour today to present a petition signed by a number of people in my province, New Brunswick. They are very concerned that the Conservative government has abolished the early learning program and child care.
These petitioners are calling upon Parliament to urge the government to continue the agreements signed with provinces to invest valuable resources in early learning and child care, not to simply reduce taxes and pretend it is a national child care program.
Paul Dewar: Mr. Speaker, I will read the contents of the preamble of this petition I am presenting on behalf of my constituents: whereas Canada has been a land of hope for newcomers, particularly refugees, and Canadians are proud of our multicultural society, Canada has an international reputation of commitment to protecting human rights as a signatory to numerous international treaties on refugees and human rights, including the convention relating to the status of refugees, the convention against torture, the convention on the rights of the child and the international covenant on civil and political rights.
Millions of people around the globe are refugees fleeing war, persecution, torture and other forms of violence, the vast majority of whom are hosted by poorer nations. Canada accepts just a tiny percentage of the world's refugees, and refugees are less than one-tenth of our total immigration. The petitioners call upon Parliament to do the following: to “welcome the stranger in need” and significantly increase the number of refugees that Canada accepts annually; to lift barriers that prevent refugees from reaching Canada; to provide international leadership to address the causes that force people from their homes and prevent them from returning; to reform Canada's refugee and immigration program to ensure full access to due process; to speed the immigration process for reuniting refugees and their families; and finally, to take further measures to help newcomers integrate into Canadian society.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): The hon. member for Ottawa Centre is new to the House, as is the current occupant of the chair. I would like to draw his attention to page 395 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice by Marleau and Montpetit. Perhaps next time the presentation of his petitions will be shorter.
I recognize the hon. member for Saskatoon—Wanuskewin.
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, CPC): Mr. Speaker, this petition is from 25 residents of Saskatchewan. They did not want Parliament to pass the hate crime bill, Bill C-250, because of the threat that it posed to Canadians' charter rights of freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Since that bill is now law, the petitioners would presumably want it repealed or amended so that Parliament is protecting the rights of all Canadians.
Maurice Vellacott: Mr. Speaker, I have another petition from some residents in Saskatchewan calling on parliamentarians to recognize the advances of modern science, which have irrefutably established that a human being begins to exist at the moment of conception. Therefore, they call on the government to bring in legislation to define a human fetus or embryo as a human being from the moment of conception.
Maurice Vellacott: Mr. Speaker, my last petition is from some 28 residents of Saskatchewan. They would like to call the attention of the House to the inconsistent foreign restrictions on the importation of beef products, which have resulted in a severe financial strain on the Canadian beef industry. They want Parliament to immediately constitute internationally accredited protocols to reinforce international confidence in Canada's healthy beef products.
Michael Savage: Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure to present two petitions on child care, as I have at least 20 times in this session. The people in my community are very concerned about the abandonment of child care. I must mention that one of the signatories is Sue Wolstenholme, who for decades has been a advocate of child care, particularly for those most in need in our communities. Last year she saw such hope and was so optimistic about the child care agreement that we had brought forward and which was agreed to by all the provinces. She is very concerned, as are many, that it has been abandoned. That is reflected in these petitions.
Helena Guergis: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise and present a petition on behalf of residents across the entire province of Ontario who are calling for the government to change the Income Tax Act and allow for income splitting so that spouses can pay taxes as if the total family income were earned equally.
Questions on the Order PaperTom Lukiwski: Mr. Speaker, I thank all my colleagues who have been breathlessly waiting the last hour and a half to hear me ask you to please allow all questions to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
[Interjection]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): It being 1:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper. 

Private Members' Business
Rural Mail DeliveryMr. Lui Temelkovski (Oak Ridges—Markham, Lib.):  moved:
 That, in the opinion of the House, the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities should use his power to direct Canada Post to maintain traditional rural mail delivery and protect public safety when rural constituents are required to collect mail at designated group mailbox locations, long distances from their homes. 
Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to have the occasion to bring this motion on rural route delivery before the House of Commons this afternoon on behalf of the people of Oak Ridges--Markham. The timing could not be better as rural mail delivery is quickly becoming more and more of an issue right across Canada.
On a regular basis we are receiving word of more health and safety complaints and of more routes being affected. As late as 11 o'clock this very morning, I was informed that another rural route in my riding, specifically Gormley, will not be receiving mail today the way it did yesterday. Recent news reports cite affected routes in rural parts of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia and other parts of Canada. 
In total there are more than 6,600 rural mail carriers across Canada delivering at some 840,000 points of mailbox delivery. The latest figures I have seen show that approximately 300 rural mail carriers have made health and safety complaints.
Before I discuss the motion and the circumstances in my riding, I want to outline just how fundamental this matter is. Aside from speech, mail delivery is the most fundamental means of communication between human beings. In an age where we have a whole host of choices for communicating, mail is still the most official and the most enduring. Indeed, we are all familiar with the classic slogan for postal delivery, “Neither rain nor snow nor sleet nor gloom of night shall stay these couriers from the swift completion of their appointed rounds”.
Mail delivery is much too important. Seniors depend on timely mail delivery for their pension cheques. Consumers who order products online depend on mail delivery for their packages. In this day of instantaneous communication and quick sound bites, who does not cherish the handwritten letter? Who could imagine receiving a wedding invitation by electronic mail?
Mail delivery is fundamental to our national identity and is as important now as it ever was. 
Constituents in my riding of Oak Ridges--Markham experienced a cessation in their rural mail delivery at the end of January, right in the dead of winter. The three routes in my riding were among the first to be affected in the whole country. Residents ceased receiving their mail because of a road safety complaint lodged by a Canada Post rural mail carrier and a subsequent ruling by Human Resources and Skills Development. The affected rural routes include Kettleby, Whitchurch-Stouffville and other areas out of the Newmarket postal station. I commend Canada Post for immediately taking action. Temporary mailboxes were installed and residents received all of their outstanding mail. 
As this is a federal issue, residents immediately contacted my riding office in Markham to let us know what was happening and to voice their displeasure at the interruption in their mail delivery. It is important for me to state that no notice was given to my constituents. They woke up one morning and there was suddenly no mail delivery. It was just that quick. I understand that other affected areas in Canada have not received proper notice either.
The situation now is that residents who were accustomed to home delivery for decades are now inconvenienced by having to drive to get their mail. Some residents in Oak Ridges--Markham have to drive long distances while others do not have vehicles.
This is not good enough for rural residents in Oak Ridges--Markham and it is not good enough for all rural Canadians. This situation presents safety concerns for rural constituents. On top of that, instead of just a few rural route carriers on the roadways, there are now thousands more people and vehicles on the roads. 
This stoppage in mail delivery has been particularly troublesome for a visually impaired customer who can no longer walk to the end of his driveway to get his mail. Another customer is physically disabled and it was not easy for him to retrieve his mail because his temporary mailbox was too high for him to reach. As well, as if it is not bad enough for the elderly, some of their temporary boxes are at ankle level. This presents a safety hazard in itself as they bend to get their mail.
I took action on this file immediately. I wrote to the minister responsible for Canada Post on two occasions. I wrote to the Prime Minister. I organized a public meeting in my riding so that Canada Post officials could hear from the residents and vice versa.
I appreciate that Canada Post officials attended the meeting and communicated with affected residents. This was the first town hall meeting that Canada Post held to explain what occurred. Canada Post now routinely holds these meetings in affected areas.
Still the situation is unresolved and will be so until traditional rural route delivery is restored and the safety of customers and employees is protected.
I recognize that unsafe work conditions exist for rural mail carriers. Some rural routes are unsafe and carriers are forced to endanger themselves on speedy roadways. As well there are ergonomic concerns in that some carriers may experience physical strain or repetitive stress injuries from continuously leaning over to put mail in the mailboxes. 
These conditions existed before, but this is a fairly new issue as rural mail carriers only became employees of Canada Post in 2004. This means that they are unionized workers and in a position to refuse unsafe working conditions. It is crucial that Canada Post deal with these concerns. No one should be in danger in his or her place of work. This is not an ideal situation for anyone. It is inconvenient and unsafe for residents and no one dismisses the dangers that exist for employees.
Beyond that, employees who make a grievance can often face contempt from their customers or may fear making a complaint in the first place due to public vilification.
The minister has to address all of these issues in his capacity as minister responsible for Canada Post. Indeed, in a letter to me dated March 28, the minister wrote that his “role as the minister responsible for Canada Post Corporation is to determine the broad policy direction of the corporation”. Rural route delivery certainly involves a matter of policy for the corporation.
Last Wednesday the minister told the House that he and the Prime Minister would be meeting with the head of Canada Post. He did not tell us when this meeting would occur, but we learned from media reports and committee transcripts that the meeting was held the very next day, on Thursday. Why was the government not more transparent? Why did the minister not tell us when the meeting would occur? What was the result of the meeting? What was discussed? We have not seen an official statement on this meeting.
This is not good enough for affected Canada Post customers. Why is the government so secretive about such a public issue? The minister knows that this concerns members on both sides of the House. Perhaps I missed something, and if I did, I hope I will be corrected, but why has the minister not reported back on this matter? 
My motion urges the minister to use his power to direct Canada Post to restore traditional rural route delivery and protect public safety. 
The minister has several options. He should propose that Canada Post, one, have a vehicle equipped with a steering wheel on the right, the opposite side; two, move problematic mail boxes to better locations; three, have two employees so one can get out of the vehicle. I understand this has already been undertaken, but perhaps this arrangement should be made permanent. He should proposed that Canada Post, four, have vehicles pull into the driveways; five, have employees get out of their vehicles to drop off the mail; six, ensure all vehicles have reflective strips and lights on them; seven, work with the provinces and municipalities to address particular road safety hazards; eight, ensure adequate training for the drivers in manoeuvring rural roadways.
These are just some ideas. Some might work better than others in certain areas. Canada Post must work carefully with affected communities and with residents to find an appropriate solution that is tailored to each mail route.
Residents expect action. It seems that every year the price of stamps increases. The net income for Canada Post in 2005 was $199 million. This represents a $52 million increase over the 2004 figure of $147 million. Indeed, 2005 represents the 11th year of consecutive profits for Canada Post.
There is no question that cutting rural route deliveries helps Canada Post cut costs. Having community mail boxes means that the corporation does not need to pay as many staff members and does not need to worry about mileage costs or about health and safety issues associated with rural route deliveries. Cutting rural route delivery is in Canada Post's best interests from a financial perspective. I sincerely hope that we will not see an attempt by Canada Post to use workers' safety complaints as an excuse to cut rural route deliveries and save money.
The corporation has the means and the money. It must safeguard the safety, convenience and rights of all customers and employees. Rural Canadians pay their postage costs and they pay their taxes. They deserve better than having to get their mail at community mail boxes.
Now is the time for the government to stand up for rural customers in Oak Ridges--Markham and right across Canada. I urge the minister and the government to support the motion.
Alex Atamanenko: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's talk on the postal situation in rural Canada is timely. I just received a call in my riding office and I would like his opinion.
The person said there are not enough post office boxes in the rural areas because the population is growing faster than Canada Post is creating new boxes. Because of this, some constituents have to go to larger centres. Folks in the community of Beaverdale, which is over an hour away from Kelowna, have to rent post office boxes in Kelowna while they are on a waiting list for a post office box in their own community.
Does the hon. member feel that this is an acceptable procedure on the part of Canada Post?
[Interjection]
Lui Temelkovski: Mr. Speaker, that is a great question. That question has been debated by the constituents in my riding and Canada Post officials. When we received the temporary boxes initially, they came banged up and with a lot of dust on top. The tops of them were cleaned up, but when the mail boxes were opened, there was all kinds of dust and perhaps hazardous stuff insides.
In my opinion, in speaking with Canada Post officials, I do not think that they will have enough mail boxes to place temporary boxes while the court hearings or the appeals are being dealt with.
Diane Finley: Mr. Speaker, as someone who until very recently relied on rural mailbox delivery for my mail, I have a very great interest in this issue as well as being representative of a very rural riding. I am concerned and have been fighting to preserve our rural mail delivery system. It goes right to the roots of our Canadian tradition. It also goes to the issue of service to rural Canadians, something that has been cut back far too often in other areas.
As the minister responsible for ensuring that people have safe work practices, I also am concerned about the workers of Canada Post. I noted, with some interest, the member's comments and suggestions on things that could be done. I hope, in the spirit of cooperation, he could elaborate on some of these. From my personal perspective, I am having a tough time understanding how some of these might work, but if they did, I would certainly like to have his input.
Specifically, the two issues I am interest in are these. How would right-hand drive vehicles help, especially with making the vehicles themselves more visible? The way I see it, is in certain locations it could actually make things worse. The second issue is the relocation of mailboxes to a more convenient location. Where does the member suggest they be located so it would help the situation?
[Interjection]
Lui Temelkovski: Mr. Speaker, this was discussed extensively at our meetings with the residents and Canada Post.
In terms of the right-hand drive, we heard, in our discussions with the residents, that mail delivery people were driving the wrong way on the shoulder so they could deliver the mail out of their window as opposed to the passenger side window. When we travel across the world or in some parts of Europe or the United States, we notice immediately that they have rural delivery trucks that are somewhat narrower with right-hand drive. This allows the drivers to put the mail into somebody's box.
In terms of relocation of the boxes and safety, that responsibility falls squarely on Canada Post to ensure that it enters into discussions with municipalities. Municipalities must work with Canada Post to suggest locations that would be safe enough. This means they must be far enough from the road or the curb, or in areas where there may be a dead-end road or on a side road as opposed to a major road. Officials of Canada Post have indicated they are modernizing their community boxes or super mailboxes. Now there is a gazebo style that would fit in with the local beauty, which may be different across the country. I like their thinking on that and I support them on that issue. 
On the safety and relocation of mailboxes, when the temporary boxes in my riding were first installed, Canada Post employees put them wherever they could. We started receiving faxes from constituents. We alerted Canada Post, which removed them and placed them somewhere else. They then obstructed the view of a church by placing 12 mailboxes in front of it. They were the green temporary boxes, which are not very attractive in front of anyone's home or any church.
Mario Laframboise: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to tell my colleague that this has snowballed. In Quebec, dozens of routes have been closed in the past few days. The president of Canada Post met with the minister and the Prime Minister when she appeared before the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities
Has my colleague heard rumours, as I have, that Canada Post's profitability is being boosted so that the corporation can be privatized in the not-so-distant future?
[Interjection]
Lui Temelkovski: Mr. Speaker, it has been discussed by Canada Post officials that this would be a larger expense for Canada Post. It also admittedly said that it would be a larger increased expense initially and maybe subsequently the carrying charges would decrease for it.
Mr. Brian Jean (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, CPC): Mr. Speaker, first, my comment is for my friend, the member for British Columbia Southern Interior. I would like to find out more information about the community of Beaverdell. My brother lived in that community and I visited it many times. My father helped build the mountain road back in the fifties and sixties. I would be happy to help in any way I can. It is an absolutely gorgeous community, and I congratulate him for having it in his riding.
On behalf of the government, I would like to give some good news to the member opposite, who put forward the motion. I take the opportunity now to tell Parliament that the government will be supporting the spirit and intention of the motion. Congratulations.
I can assure the member that, as the member of Parliament for Fort McMurray—Athabasca, a rural area in northeastern Alberta, I am very aware of the concerns of rural Canada. I also am very aware of the importance of a reliable postal service, as are all members on this side of the House. I am very proud to be a member of a government that will support rural Canadians.
I want all members of the House to understand that the government recognizes the important role that the post office plays in communities across Canada. Thus, in addition to supporting a quality rural mail service, we are also fully committed to maintaining the moratorium on rural post office closures. It is great news again from the government.
Of course there are unavoidable situations such as fires or deaths, where something happens that cannot be avoided and where the operation of a rural post office in a small community can be affected. In such cases, Canada Post always consults locally with these communities to explore any option that is possible and available to meet the obligations and needs for ongoing postal needs for that community.
It is important to note that many of the concerns regarding disruption of rural mail delivery services are reported to be of a safety and ergonomic nature, as my friend across the floor brought forward.
However, today's motion focuses directly on rural mail delivery. I think it would be helpful for members to know why the motion was presented and why the Conservative government supports the spirit and intention of the motion.
Some members may be aware that there have been recent health and safety concerns expressed by postal employees delivering mail to roadside mail boxes in rural areas. Canada Post has in fact briefed members who want information on their areas. It has been very cooperative in providing briefings to members regarding those ridings that have been affected.
The member for Oak Ridges—Markham as well as the member for York—Simcoe, a member from this side of the House, are very aware of the situation because they have safety concerns relating to the Newmarket area ridings. For those members who have not yet been briefed on the issues that impact rural mail carriers, I am here today to provide some background information, which I hope will be helpful for them.
First, Canada Post delivers some 40 million pieces of mail per day to more than 12 million addresses, and it does so in a number of different ways. We are all familiar with the resident's door and delivery of mail that way. We are also familiar with the community mailboxes that have become commonplace in Canada. Finally, there is the mail delivery at local post offices.
Rural mail carriers deliver to approximately 843,000 addresses through roadside rural mailboxes, usually located at the end of people's driveways. Canada Post employees have not always performed this work. Prior to 2004, this work was done by private contractors.
[Intervention]
An hon. member:  What happened to them?
Brian Jean:  What happened was a private member's bill came forward and the government acted. The bill sought for the independent contractors to become postal employees. Indeed, Canada Post and the Canadian Union of Postal Workers, signed an agreement, resulting in more than 6,000 contractors becoming employees of Canada Post in January 2004.
The law rightfully places obligations as well on all employers across Canada to ensure that they have safe working conditions for employees. Under the Canada Labour Code, which the House passed, there are certain obligations on employers. Employers now even have further legal responsibilities to ensure that the health and safety of employees is protected.
Indeed, the House recently amended the Criminal Code, following the Westray Mine disaster, to impose a new duty on employers to take reasonable steps to prevent employees from suffering harm at work.
 What could be more important than keeping Canadians safe in the job or at home?
In the past six months, more than a few hundred rural mail carriers have raised health and safety concerns. Some have even exercised their legal right to refuse to work under the Canada Labour Code. These employees have raised two areas of concerns.
 The first, as has been mentioned, is ergonomic health, a complaint arising from the repetitive motion of stretching to deliver rural mail across a left-hand drive vehicle into a post box.
 The second is related to road safety. This concern is especially prevalent in rural communities or on rural roads. These include, for example, high volumes of traffic and the increase in volume of traffic on rural roads. Sometimes these roads are not wide enough to allow a vehicle to pull off to the side to deliver the mail without having to worry about what's coming behind them. In some cases there are insufficient sight distances. For instance, roadways and hills cause a visual disturbance to somebody coming along behind them. Thus, they are unable to react quickly enough or to stop to avoid some form of accident.
We are talking about the safety of employees and the safety of residents in rural Canada.
Human Resources and Social Development health and safety officers have been called in to investigate a number of the work refusals. They have determined, in some cases, that the workplace conditions do constitute a situation that must be immediately corrected: safety concerns. The government is committed to the safety of Canadians.
Canada Post is committed to protecting the safety of all its employees. The corporation immediately upon receiving these decisions implemented a series of measures to mitigate these concerns. 
There are a limited number of safe alternatives to roadside mailboxes, and Canada Post understands this. This may include delivery to a central point, such as a local post office or a community mailbox. Millions of Canadians, including rural Canadians, already receive their mail this way and have for some period of time.
Where Canada Post has received a Human Resources and Social Development decision or direction relating to road safety or where delivery is clearly unsafe, quick action has been required and quick action has been taken. In these cases, customers have immediately been moved to alternative forms of delivery.
In each case Canada Post is working closely with the community because the community is what drives Canada Post, and it understands that. It is working closely with the community to ensure that convenient delivery is maintained through locations where both employees and public safety is protected, the very thing to which the member's motion speaks.
 At the same time, Canada Post has engaged various experts, including traffic safety experts at the National Research Council, to evaluate and advise Canada Post on the working conditions of rural mail carriers. The findings of these experts will provide guidance moving forward as to how Canada Post can comply with the legal requirements and its obligations to its employees.
Some of the more practical solutions Canada Post has already moved on are flashing yellow lights to ensure these vehicles are visible from behind and reflective signs. They have already been passed out and delivered to all 6,000 rural route drivers.
Just as the government takes seriously the safety and the ergonomic concerns raised by Canada Post employees, we are insisting that Canada Post maintain a rural mail service. The government recognizes that issues have arisen with respect to rural mail delivery and are in part due to labour issues, but also are in part due to safety issues.
The Prime Minister and the minister responsible for Canada Post have recently met with senior officials of Canada Post. As a consequence, Canada Post has reiterated its commitment to taking steps to ensure quality rural mail delivery.
The government is supporting the spirit and intention of the motion.
Mario Laframboise: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the Bloc Québécois to discuss the motion introduced by our colleague from Oak Ridges—Markham.
At the outset, I would like to say that we support the principle underlying my colleague's private member's bill. 
If I may, I would like to quote the Bloc's most recent election platform, which was straightforward:
 —adapting government services and crown corporations, such as Canada Post, to the aging population is an important issue. 
The rural population is aging, and Canada Post must do everything in its power to adapt its services to this reality and avoid forcing people, particularly those with disabilities and reduced mobility, to travel long distances just to get their mail. 
This is important. There is indeed a problem at Canada Post, as my colleague mentioned, but there is also the reality of the situation. When I say we agree in principle, we have to be careful because this situation is changing very quickly.
Earlier we heard the parliamentary secretary say he was in favour from the outset, just like the government, to the motion introduced by the hon. member, but let us not forget it has two parts. The first part says:
 —to maintain traditional rural mail delivery— 
and the second part adds:
 —and protect public safety when rural constituents are required to collect mail at designated group mailbox locations, long distances from their homes. 
That is where we must be careful. The parliamentary secretary is explaining the message from Canada Post, as its president did at the last meeting of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.
The president came to deliver her message that for safety reasons we have to put an end to these irregularities in the interest of her employees. Nonetheless, her speech and what is really going on are two entirely different things.
I want to warn all my colleagues from rural areas. In a question to my colleague, I said earlier that Quebec had not been affected. However, for the past two weeks it has been directly affected. In other words, the syndrome that hit certain communities in New Brunswick and British Columbia is snowballing.
At first, as the parliamentary secretary was saying, it was a matter of a refusal to work. It is true that under the collective agreement the employees can file a refusal to work. In such cases, Canada will see what the problem is. 
This time, however, Canada Post is taking it much further. There are two options: employees can use refusal to work or they can file a safety complaint. Canada Post, apparently, is at the second stage. 
It happened in my riding—as those citizens listening are aware—with regard to a complaint about roads in Thurso, Lochaber-Canton and Lochaber Ouest. Two days ago they saw a notice that they will be receiving. Canada Post met with the communities to tell them that a complaint had been filed. An employee who wished to avoid a refusal to work decided to notify Canada Post that certain locations on the roads were unsafe. At that point, Canada Post initiated the process as though there had been a refusal to work. It decided to notify the public. It quickly carried out a safety evaluation and told the citizens that 178 of 660 mailboxes had safety issues.
It invited the public to a meeting. I will read you the notice that will be sent to them, because other Quebec communities have received it. It is a notice advising that Canada Post wishes to meet with the members of the community and discuss ways to solve this problem. Canada Post makes two, not three, suggestions: citizens will have to pick up their mail at the local post office or use community mailboxes.
When the community asked Canada Post if it was prepared to sit down with citizens to resolve the problem of the 178 mailboxes, Canada Post said that it did not have the time, that it was too expensive to do so, that it was not what it wanted, and added that it wished to speak to them about remedial solutions. There are only two: send citizens to the post office or set up community mailboxes. There is no other solution.
It does not matter what the parliamentary secretary tells us. If he does not rein in the president of Canada Post, who does not want to spend money once the safety evaluation is completed, she will not deal with each of these problems.
The parliamentary secretary told us that the Canada Post Corporation is ready to sit down with Canadians. That is not true. That is not what the Canada Post Corporation does. It will gather citizens together in one place to tell them that there are safety issues, that it analyzed the situation, and that the only solution is to create community mailboxes. It will ask them where they want these community mailboxes set up, or whether they would prefer to have their mail sent directly to the post office. That is what it will really do. 
The elderly and people with disabilities who live in rural locations and are used to getting their mail delivered at home in their own mailboxes will have to leave home to get their mail. That is why I am cautioning my colleague who introduced the motion. He must ensure their safety. When they go to public places, citizens must feel comfortable and safe.
I agree with that, but first, I would like the Canada Post Corporation to sit down with people who have safety issues to see whether they might be able to move their mailboxes or whether there might be some other solution.
I am sorry for my hon. colleague, but having spoken directly with Canada Post Corporation, having listened to the president in committee, I know that Canada Post is willing to analyze safety issues, and if it is deemed unsafe, it will find another means. This other means will not involve changing the location of the mailbox. It will not involve looking at solutions one by one with citizens; it will be a comprehensive solution. If there are safety concerns on any given route, it will create group mail boxes.
The problem is that Canada Post cannot create these group mail boxes immediately because, apparently, manufacturers cannot deliver them fast enough. Thus, that idea must be forgotten. There seems to be quite an operation in the works. That is what I was saying earlier. One can sense that Canada Post is preparing for future privatization.
An analysis of the safety and security concerns across Canada will likely be conducted. We already know that 25% of mail boxes can pose safety problems. A massive project is underway to remove those mail boxes and tell people that they must use group mail boxes or simply go to their local post office.
That is not the answer. That is not what people want. What is more, Canada Post's profits will not let the corporation do that. It could sit down with the people whose mailboxes may pose safety problems to see if it can solve those problems. If it cannot, it may send them to the post office. But Canada Post is not prepared to do that. And my colleague's motion, which we support, does not suggest that.
My colleague has not seen how events have progressed. Changes are being made very quickly and will eventually apply to everyone. Quebec has been covered for two weeks, and this is going to snowball. Quebec has more mailboxes on poles than anywhere else in Canada. We will see a series of decisions by Canada Post that will put an end to deliveries to mailboxes for safety reasons.
It started with complaints. Canada Post will conduct safety operations everywhere to make sure its employees do not refuse to work. It will try to use its employees to justify its actions.
You should have seen the president in committee. Her eyes were twinkling with dollar signs at the thought of how much money the corporation could save. Among other things, she will save money in the long term with community mail boxes. It was quite something to see this woman in action. She was the consummate CEO taking decisions.
As I told my colleague, before the president appeared before the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, she attended a meeting at the Prime Minister's Office with the Minister of Transport. He told us about it. My fear is that a decision has been made to privatize Canada Post in the medium term. They will look for ways to save as much money as possible in order to make it profitable and be able to privatize it.
This goes against the interests of all members of the public, especially those living in rural areas who will be at a disadvantage because the rural service costs too much and poses safety problems. Under the guise of safety, they are going to save money on the backs of the public. All the hon. members from ridings where mail is delivered to rural areas will be affected. They should not be surprised. Before the president appeared before the committee there was no problem in my riding. In just two weeks, two routes with mail boxes in rural areas are at risk. Hon. members will have to deal with this in their ridings and they will have to be vigilant.
We will of course support the motion of the hon. member, but I think that the government should rein in Canada Post and table a bill in this House to protect rural routes.
Dennis Bevington: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, the member for Oak Ridges—Markham, for his timely private member's motion. As a rookie MP in the House of Commons, I see that he has taken the opportunity to bring forward an issue that really does resonate right across the whole country. He focused it on his riding, but it fits the whole country and that is a very good thing to do. 
I trust that we can move forward with this motion, with the support of the New Democratic Party and with the concurrence of the government. Of course, concurrence of the government does not mean that we are going to get the final results we are looking for and that was well pointed out by my colleague who spoke earlier. 
There are many a slip twixt cup and lip when it comes to dealing with Canada Post, and getting some of kind of ruling and result in the end without considerable backsliding along the way. This motion is appropriate, but it is going to require follow up and attention from across the country to ensure that it works for people.
Last weekend I had the opportunity to attend a meeting of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. As deputy critic for rural and northern communities for the NDP, I attended the rural communities forum. Rural municipalities across the country have realized over the last number of years that they need to get organized at a national level in order to get their voices out and issues on the table.
The FCM has organized, at the national level, the rural communities and it would be a very good place to extend this discussion, using its capacity to reach out to rural communities across the country, to understand if these problems are occurring all over the country and also to ensure that when the government instructs Canada Post to deal with the problems, we have a way of seeing that they are dealt with. 
I would say that might be another avenue to take this issue at a date in the future. It has an executive committee as well that meets on a quarterly basis and could put forward this kind of information to the rest of its members. That is one way we might continue this to ensure that Canada Post not only deals with the issue but continues to deal with the issue and works satisfactorily on this issue across the whole country.
I represent northern communities and there are very few that have any kind of postal delivery. We all rely on postal boxes in central post offices in the smaller communities. Many of the communities are small in size and people routinely travel 20 to 30 kilometres a day or whenever they choose to do so to collect their mail. 
There is no consistent standard of delivery across the country for all rural people that we could point to and say that is the way it is done for everyone. That is not the case and in many of these communities, of course, the burden is put on people to get their own mail at a central point. That is part of living in the north. People put up with these sorts of things. 
In other ways other services have been given to us. The food mail system in the north is very important to people. They can get food delivered to them at a reasonable postal rate, but what they have found in a lot of the communities in the north is that the stores are taking advantage of the food mail delivery costs and not passing it on to the customer. That is a concern that northerners have with Canada Post, that it enforce the spirit of the food mail delivery system as well as the letter of the law.
Canada Post must have the spirit to show that it wants to be that public service that we want it to be. Any time I hear that Canada Post should be even more privatized than it is already I shudder for our northern communities. It leaves me completely cold to think that would be the direction in which we would take that service, which has so many important attributes for isolated and rural communities across the country. We certainly do not want to see that.
I appreciate that the member has brought this matter forward in the form of his motion, which he was fortunate enough to have had drawn under private members' bills. All members wish we were in the top 10 of the lottery on private members' business but that does not always happen. I think I am at 208. I am unlikely to get into the top 10 unless the government turns out to be more conciliatory. We will all work on that over the summer. We will not be betting any money on the length of time the government stays in power. At the same time, the government should think about other members who have numbers in the triple digits and consider that we may want to bring forward motions such as this one in the future.
The New Democratic Party will support the motion but we want to ensure it works, that it does not get caught up in bureaucracy, that it does not get caught up in where the separation between Canada Post and the minister means that it could get watered down and the solution that does not work for everyone is implemented. 
Hon. Andy Scott (Fredericton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I also commend the member for Oak Ridges--Markham for the timely use of his very fortunate draw in private members' business. What I would like to do today is put a practical and human face on the issues that this private member's bill is designed to deal with.
Last Monday, 1,150 homes in greater Fredericton were advised that there would be no mail the next day. As a result of that, by noon on Tuesday my office had received 60 calls and 100 by the end of the day. We called Canada Post when this happened to find out what was going on and were advised that mail delivery had stopped as a result of work refusal on the part of its employees in terms of rural home delivery. While safety issues could be applied in some instances in greater Fredericton, the same arguments could not apply to the vast majority.
In any case, for two or three days it was very difficult. Unlike my Bloc colleague, I would say that the president of Canada Post, under very difficult circumstances, did respond to our interventions and began the process of public meetings. Four meetings have been held so far. However, this is not a particularly pleasant exercise because constituents are very angry as this came as a complete shock to them. They received no notice. Many of the people we are talking about are seniors and many have disabilities. All of this happened right out of the blue. We are talking about cheques and other important communications that were not being received. These constituents were simply caught completely unaware.
Over the course of the next three or four days there was significant movement on the part of Canada Post and it started bringing in mailboxes. When we originally called we were advised that Canada Post would not be able to make any temporary arrangements for at least six weeks. As it happened, temporary mailboxes were put in place that weekend after the rather vociferous response within the community. 
I welcome what the parliamentary secretary had to say about the government's support for this motion. I understand there are 840,000 similar rural mailboxes in Canada. There are now ongoing discussions within Canada Post as to what lessons might have been learned from this. If significant change is going to be made, and this is a significant change, it is hard enough to change things in an unemotional, calm atmosphere but if we add the dimension of injustice these people felt by virtue of the fact there was no notice, then it is more difficult to have that community forum exercise. 
Good suggestions were made and my colleague alluded to many. The Minister of Human Resources and Social Development wondered about having the car reconfigured so the driver would sit on the other side. The reason this suggestion was made was because of the recurring movement problems involved with reaching over. These kinds of vehicles are used in other jurisdictions in the world for the same purpose.
Many people recognize that they live on streets where it is not just dangerous for the person doing the delivery, but it is dangerous for the people who receive the delivery in that fashion. Many of them recognize the need to have collective mailboxes but they are not the majority. That is not even close to a majority. It is very difficult to defend on a safety issue or a safety argument when, in the case of many of the residents, they are caught on a route that had some unsafe boxes, but certainly it does not apply to all, or even the majority of them.
I would also suggest that this should not be posed as a choice between rural home delivery and the safety of employees. It is the responsibility of Canada Post to figure out how to do this in a way that is safe for its employees. I take it from what the parliamentary secretary said that the government accepts that and would give that as a general policy direction to the Crown corporation.
I also want to pay tribute to the residents who, notwithstanding their anxiety, concern and outright anger in some cases, have in fact participated in these public meetings. In fact, residents have chaired the meetings. They have made a large number of very reasonable and positive suggestions. I will not go through the list because that has been done, but I want to pay particular recognition to Sue Johnstone with Canada Post locally in Fredericton who has been very helpful in facilitating these meetings. I think that they will continue.
Again, I want to make sure that no one, and there will be those that may try, should somehow ask the carriers to operate in unsafe conditions, nor should they ask the residents to somehow be responsible for the fact that they cannot be served in any way that is not safe. The reality is that those two competing objectives can be reconciled.
Further, as we go forward with 840,000 of these boxes across the country, the most important lesson that should be learned from this unacceptable execution has to do with notice. It has to do with public consultation before the fact so that the communities can engage in offering their own understanding of the roads, understanding of locations, understanding of what is convenient and possible within their communities. As I say, change is not something that is embraced easily. We do not need the complication of anger, emotion and so on.
I also want to recognize a few individuals who have gone out of their way in an obviously volunteer capacity. John Moreau of Rusagonis outside of Fredericton has been going door to door since last Monday circulating petitions. There will be a large number coming forward. I do not think we can let up in this. As an hon. colleague from the Northwest Territories said earlier, it is one thing for the government to support the private member's motion, but it is quite another to make sure that it is executed better in the future.
Jackie Philips of Rusagonis chaired a meeting in that community. Again, these are volunteers in their local communities and some of these meetings were charged. We should be appreciative of them for doing this.Don Stewart is going door to door in MacLeod Hill and Royal Road. That would include the part of Fredericton where I live. Earl Holland in the local service district of Noonan chaired a meeting and has been making calls around the community.
There is a resolution here as we go forward. Again with 840,000 boxes this can be done in a way that is acceptable to the communities. People are not unreasonable. People would not want the employees of Canada Post to put their health and safety at risk, but in the spirit of this private member's motion, and as has been accepted by the parliamentary secretary, this is about a commitment by the government to rural home delivery and not something other than that, unless there are a minor number of instances where it has to be done differently. All other things should be done basically as a responsibility of Canada Post. 
We cannot blame these citizens for fearing that this would be seen as an opportunity by the government, because I know that some have said that this is an opportunity, to move to a different place. I was glad to hear the parliamentary secretary tell the House that not only does he reject that notion, but that he intends to support this private member's motion.
Mr. Gary Schellenberger (Perth—Wellington, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have known and know many rural mail carriers who have delivered mail day by day, rain, snow, sleet, hail or whether the sun is shining. Many have been working into their seventies and eighties, never complaining, sometimes without holidays, thinking only of getting the mail through, people like Freeman Apple, Bill Ney and Richard McNamara. 
Many Canadians, especially those in rural areas of the country, have become concerned in recent weeks about the disruption in delivery service to their homes. The government has heard this message. That is why the minister, as well as the Prime Minister, has directed Canada Post to maintain good quality service to all rural residents.
As members are aware, the disruptions to rural mail delivery in Newmarket and elsewhere were caused after Human Resources and Social Development Canada ruled that Canada Post had not protected some employees against the possibility of being struck by traffic on busy routes. Given the changes to workplace health and safety standards, it is perhaps not a surprise that complaints have been made today, even after rural delivery procedures have remained the same for many years.
Since January 26 when the ruling was made, Canada Post has tried to place group mailboxes along delivery routes in safe stopping areas. Canada Post has also met with local officials and the public to discuss the issue.
Certainly, the safety of all Canada Post employees must be our top priority, but I am hopeful that this can be done while at the same time ensuring that people in smaller, rural communities receive their mail as quickly and conveniently as possible. That is why I hope that Canada Post will consider alternatives for those areas where legitimate safety concerns exist or where visibility requirements are not met.
I am pleased that Canada Post has recognized the impact of its changes on some rural communities and has agreed to work with them to find solutions. It is important to meet the needs of both employees and customers. As a rural member of Parliament, I know how important this is to so many of my constituents.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): The time provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper.
At this moment, before I call the time, I would like to pay tribute to 18 of our pages. The people who work with us and who serve with us on a daily basis are also community-minded. Last weekend they assisted four members of this House at the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario annual telethon. 
The four members of the House were: the hon. President of the Treasury Board, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board, the hon. member for Hull--Aylmer, and your humble servant.
However the credit really belongs to these 18 pages and they are: Ellen Burch, Laura Morrison, Stephen Middleton, Dominique Angelo, Emily Bates, Nathalie Freynet, Joseph Morin, Renée Tousignant-Keays, Sarah Burke, Andrée Carpentier, Sarah Gillis, James Mancini, Mark Ruban, Anna Hopkins, Jennifer Laing, Marisa Monnin, Jeremy Stuart and Leslie Ning.
I thank them all, on behalf of the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario telethon.
It being 2:30 p.m, this House stands adjourned until Monday next at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1). 
(The House adjourned at 2:32 p.m.)